BV  811  .' 

rA77 

Terrell, 

Williamson, 

1805- 

1873. 

A  debate 

on  baptism  . 

and  the 

witness 

of  the  Holy 

Spirit 

DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

AND  THE  WITJNESS  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIKI 

HELD  IN 

Fail-view,  la.  NoTembeir^  ]IS4'3'- 

BETWEEN 

HEV.  WILLIAMSON  TERRELL, 

Circuit  Preacher  of  the  Methodisi  Episcopal  Church, 
AND 

HENRY  R.  PRITCHARD, 

Evangelist  of  the  Christian  Church. 


Mr.  Pritchard's  speeches  reported  by  himaolf,  and  Mr. 
by  B.  Franklin. 


MILTON,  lA. 

PRINTED  BY  FRANKUN  Be  8MIT». 

1848. 


INTRODUCTION. 

In  presenting  the  followina:  debate  to  the  public,  it 
is  thought  necessary  to  make  a  few  brief  remarks  by 
way  of  introduction. 

1.  The  debate  originated  in  the  unprovoked  attacks 
of  Mr.  Terrell  upon  our  people,  and  especially  upon 
brother  A.  Campbell,  in  the  vicinity  of  Fairview,  In- 
diana. After  those  attacks  had  been  made,  Mr.  Pritch- 
ard,  residing  at  that  place,  felt  himself  called  upon,  in 
justice  to  the  common  cause  of  our  Master,  to  invite 
Mr.  Terrell  to  a  public  discussion,  of  the  proper  issuer 
betw^een  us  and  our  Methodist  friends.  But  even  that 
was  not  done  until  he  was  dared  by  the  friends  cf  Mr. 
Terrell.  A  correspondence  ensued,  in  which  Mr.  Pritch- 
ard  presented  six  propositions,  which  Mr.  Terrell  de 
clined  debating.  Mr.  Terrell  presented  four  proposi- 
tions, which  Mr.  Pritchard  finally  accepted,  and  agreed 
to  debate  under  the  usual  and  equal  rules  of  contro- 
versy, which  the  reader  will  find  on  another  page. 
Mr.  Pritchard  selected  Mr.  G.  Campbell,  and  Mc.  Ter 
rell  selected  Mr.  J.  Shields,  as  Moderators,  and  thes  i 
two  selected  Mr.  Burress  as  President  Moderator.  I: 
was  also  agreed  by  Messrs.  Pritchard  and  Terrell  thali 
the  Moderators  should  make  rules  to  govern  the  discufs  • 
sion. 

2.  The  profiers  made  Mr.  Terrell  for  publishing  xh.  t 
debate  will  appear  for  themselves,  as  an  explanation 
of  Mr.  Terrrli's  not  writing  out  his  own  speeches,     I 


4  INTllODlJCTION. 

i:n  truly  sorry  that  he  could  not  be  induced  to  do  So, 
that  the  book  might  be  endorsed  by  him.  There  are 
two  reasons  for  the  speeches  of  Mr.  Terrell  being  so 
short.  1.  He  spoke  slow,  and  consequently  did  not  ut- 
ter near  as  much  matter  as  Mr.  P.  2.  It  w^as  impossi- 
Me  forme  to  get  every  remark  he  made.  But  I  have 
!one  the  best  I  could  to  give  all  his  argument.^,  in  the 
same  order  as  deUvered.  How  well  I  have  succeeded, 
^  leave  to  others  who  heard  to  decide. 

B.  Fkankll^. 


DEBATE. 

1st.  The  propositions  shall  be  discussed  in  the  follow- 
ing  order,  viz. 

1.  "Immersion  is  essential  to  Chriatian  Baptism."  Mr.  Phtchard  af- 
firms. 

2-  "Infant  children  are  proper  subjects  of  Baptism;"  or.  "The  in- 
fant of  a  believing  parent  is  a  scriptural  subject  of  baptism  ."  Mr .  Ter- 
rell affirms. 

3.  "Whenever  the  Gospel  is  pr3ached  Water  Baptism  is  essential  t^. 
the  pnrdon  of  past  sins."     Mr.  P.  affirnas. 

4.  'The  Holy  Ghost  bears  an  immediate,  direct  and  personal  tsstimon  y 
to  tile  believer  in  Christ  of  his  pardon."'   Mr.  T.  affirms. 

2d.  The  di-scussion  shall  be  in  the  Meeting  House  in 
the  village  of  Fairview  Rush  Co.  la.,  and  commence 
on  the  3rd  Tuesday  in  Nov.  next  and  continue  four 
days. 

3d.  The  daily  discussion  shall  commence  at  9  A.  IM. 
0nd  continue  until  12;  be  resumed  at  1^  P.  M-  and 
close  at3i  each  proposition  being  the  subject  of  discus- 
sion for  one  day  only.  The  daily  time  may  be  changed 
by  consent  of  parties. 
*  4th.  The  disputants  shall  occupy  one  half  of  an  hour 
alternately  during  each  day  commencing  with  the  atlir- 
mative. 

.5th.  No  new  matter  shall  be  introduced  on  the  final 
negative  except  in  reply  to  matter  introduced  for  thf 
first  time  in  the  closingspeech  of  the  affirmant. 

6th.  The  parties  should  mutually  consider  each  oth- 
er as  standing  on  a  footing  of  equality  in  respect  to  tin  ^ 
subject  in  debate.  Each  should  regard  the  other  as 
possessing  equal  talents,  knowledge  and  a  desire  for 
truth  with  himself,  and  that  it  is  possible  therefore  that 
he  may  be  in  the  wrong  and  his  adversary  in  the  right. 

7th.  All  expressions  which  are  unmeaning  or  with- 


t)  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

out  cfTect  in  regard  to  the  subject  in  debate  should  be 
-trictly  avoided. 

8th.  Personal  reflections  on  an  adversary  should  in 
no  instance  be  indulged. 

9th.  As  Truth  not  victory  is  the  professed  object  of 
controversy  whatever  proofs  may  be  advanced  on  either 
side  should  be  examined  v^'ith  fairness  and  candor,  and 
;iny  attempt  to  answer  an  adversary,  by  arts  of  sophis- 
Uy  or  to  lessen  the  force  of  his  reasoning  by  wit  cavil- 
ling or  ridicule  is  a  violation  of  the  rules  of  honorable 
"'ontroversy. 

10th.  Any  error  in  the  statement  of  facts,  (if  such 
should  be  found,  in  this  paper)  shall  be  corrected  by  a 
reference  to  the  written  agreement  entered  into  by  the 
disputants  atFairview. 

H.  Nutting. 

Jonathan  Shields, 

H.  St.  John  Van  Dakk. 

Tuesday,  9  o'clock,  Nov.  16th  1847.     , 

The  president  moderator  arose  and  remarked  as  fol- 
lows: 

Gentlemen,  and  ladies:  We  have  convened  to-day  for 
HO  unworthy  purpose;  but  for  the  discussion  of  several 
ij'i-eat  points  pertaining  to  the  Christian  religion.  The 
object  of  every  person  present  should  be  to  enquire 
honestly  after  truth.  Truth  is  or  should  be,  the  great 
f  bject  on  all  such  occasions,  and  we  should  be  careful 
not  to  be  diverted  from  that  object  by  extraneous  cir- 
cumstances. 

1  presume  it  is  unnecessary  to  say  any  thing  to  the 
speakers  who  are  to  occupy  the  stand  on  this  interres- 
ling  occasion,  as  to  what  course  they  should  pursue. — 
Vh^i  dignity  of  the  stations  which  they  occupy,  as  min- 
isters of  the  gospel,  will  of  course  dictate  to  them  bet- 
ter than  any  thing  1  could  say,  the  gravity,  candor  and 
honesty  which  they  should  exhibit  throughout. 

1  deem  it  necessary  and  of  first  importance,  for  the  au- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  7 

iicnce  to  observe  the  most  strict  order.  This  i<  a  tc- 
igious  meeting,  and  as  such  is  protected  by  ihe  laws 
t'  our  country,  and  consequently  any  disorderly  persor»s 
niay  expect  to  be  punished.  No  indications  ot'  appro- 
bation or  disapprobation  should  be  manifested,  as  such 
is  regarded  by  all  well  informed  persons  as  indecoroizs. 
Let  perfect  peace  and  decorum  prevail  throughout  the 


[mr.  pritchard's  first  address.] 

Ccntlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

1  appear  before  you  at  this  time,  and  in  this  place,  1o 
eontend  for  an  item  of  that  religious  faith  once  deliver- 
<  d  to  the  saints  ;  and  my  prayer  to  the  Author  of  rny 
'teing  and  the  Father  of  my  spirit  is,  that  I  may  speak, 
;is  I  should  speali, — that  I  may  throughout  this  dlscus- 
^i(m,  be  governed  and  guided  by  that  wisdom,  wh;.ch 
i<  from  above,  which  is  first  pure,  then  peaceable  and 
irentle,  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  mercy  and  of  good 
Huit;  and  that  you  my  Christian  friends,  may  hef*r, 
with  that  impartiality,  which  become  those,  who  a,r*i 
<!estined  to  appear  soon  before  that  God,  who  is  iic- 
quainted  with  the  thoughts,  and  intentions  of  evfry 
iicart. 

The  proposition  to  be  discussed  this  morning  is  iUe 
following: 

'•'Immersion  is  essential  to  Christian  baptism.'" 
This  proposition  is  one  that  my  friend  Mr.  Terrell,  ia 
\\ie  kindness  and  benevolence  of  his  soul,  has  made  for 
.■if",  to  affirm  in  this  discussion.  He,  with  a  degrcee  oi 
•ourage,  unknown  in  former  ages,  seemed  unwilling  to 
■f-nter  into  a  public  discussion  with  your  humble  servant, 
but  upon  condition  that,  I  would  allow  him  to  iiiak»^, 
propositions  for  me  to  affirm,  as  well  as  for  himself; 
presuming,  I  suppose,  to  understand  the  sentimf^nts  ri 
iDyself,  and  brethren,  better  than  we  do  ourselves. 
J  admire  the  wisdom  if  not  the  conrage,  manifested 


^^  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

by  Mr.  Terrell,  in  the  wording  of  this  proposition;  for 
he  has  done  the  best  he  could  for  himself,  and  party. 

K  feeling  sense  of  the  danger,  a  man  is  in,  while  op- 
posing the  truth;  was  not  far  from  him  when  he  wrote 
the  word  '^ essential.''^  By  this  word,  he  supposed  he 
would  be  made  free, in  this  discussion  from  Methodism, 
and  every  other  ism — that  he  would  have  nothing  to 
prove,  and  of  course  might  run  in  any  and  every  direc- 
tion in  search  of  materials,  upon  which  he  could  make 
a  speech;  fill  up  his  time,  and  appear  to  do  something 
when  he  is  doing  nothing. 

The  only  fair  and  honorable  way  of  debating,  among 
men  of  manly  courage,  and  independence  of  soul  is, 
to  agree  upon  a  proposition,  which  brings  the  senti- 
ments of  both  parties,  fairly  into  the  discussion.  This 
has  not  been  done  by  Mr.  Terrell.  Me  well  knew  that 
his  sprinkling  machinery,  would  not  work,  where  there 
was  ^'■much  water;^''  so,  of  course,  he  thought  it  most  con- 
venient, and  safe,  for  him  and  his  party,  to  hide  it  during 
tliis  discussion.  Small  men  are  sometimes  possessed  of 
wisdom. 

What  I  believe  I  am  wilhng  to  affirm  in  the  presence 
of  Mr.  Terrell,  or  any  other  man,  and  as  I  most  sol- 
emnly and  conscientiously  believe,  before  heaven  and 
earth,  that  immersion  is  the  only  christian  baptism,  \ 
will  proceed  to  affirm,  and  defend,  in  the  best  way  1 
can,  my  faith  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  Terrell  and  his  party  believe,  or  pretend  to  be- 
lieve, that  Immersion,  sprinkUng,  and  pouring  are  ali 
moths  of  baptism  but  none  of  them  the  very  thing 
wliich  the  Lord  commanded.  If  the  Redeemer  did  not 
fjommand  immersion,  will  Mr.  Terrell  have  the  good- 
ness to  tell  us  what  he  did  command? 

If  he  should  deny  that  the  Lord  commanded  us  to  be 
immersed,  it  would  follow,  that  every  time  he  has  im- 
mersed a  person,  he  did  the  same  thing  the  Lord  never 
commanded  him  or  any  one  else  to  do.  If  he  denies 
that  baptism  means  immersion,  it  will  follow,  that  ^v-. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  9 

or}*  time  he  has  immersed  a  person,  saying,  "1  baptize 
you,"  he  told  something  which  he  knows  no  man  ought. 
If  he  admits  that  Christ  commanded  immersion,  and 
that  baptism  is  immersion,  it  will  follow,  that  his  sprink- 
ling, and  pouring,  have  no  more  to  do  with  baptism, 
than  e'/tmi>-  and  sleeping  have.  If  he  should  tell  you, 
that  baptism  means  immersion,  sprinkling,  and  pouring, 
and  that  Christ  commanded  them  all  to  be  done,  it  will 
follow,  that  no  one  is  baptized  in  obedience  to  the  Lord, 
until  he  is  immersed,  sprinkled  and  poured.  If  bap- 
tism means  them  all,  and  Christ  commanded  them  all, 
what  can  be  more  certain,  than  that  we  are  solemnly 
bound  to  do  them  all?  If  he  should  tell  you,  that  Christ 
designed  to  establish  on  the  earth,  just  such  a  church 
as  the  Methodist  Church,  in  which  some  should  be 
sprinkled,  some  poured,  and  some  immersed,  will  he 
have  the  goodness  to  tell  us,  how  we  are  to  know^,  w'ho 
to  sprinkle,  who  to  pour,  and  who  to  immerse?  If  he 
should  answer  that  Christ  designed  every  one  to  choose 
for  himself;  we  will  feel  under  everlasting  obligations 
to  him  if  he  w^ill  tell  us,  why  he  and  his  party  have  sub- 
verted the  design  of  Christ,  by  sprinkling  infants,  and 
taking  away  from  them,  their  right  to  choose  for  them- 
selves? 

As  my  friend  Mr.  Terrell  has  the  reputation  of  being 
a  good  disputant,  and  is  said,  to  be  possessed  of  great 
reasoning  powers,  I  hope  he  will  bring  them  all  to  bear 
upon  this  subject  to  day,  and  remove  some  of  these  dif- 
ficulties out  of  his  way.  That  I  do  not  misrepresent 
the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Terrell,  wdll  appear  from  the  fol- 
lowing passage,  which  I  find  in  "Doctrinal  Tracts  on 
page  287. 

"With  regard  to  the  mode  of  baptizing,  I  would  only 
add,  Christ  no  where,  as  far  as  I  can  find,  requires  dip- 
ping but  only  baptizing:  which  word,  many  most  emi- 
nent for  learning  and  piety,  have  declared,  signifies  to 
pour  on,  or  sprinkle,  as  well  as  to  dip.  As  our  Lord  has 
graciously  given  us  a  word  of  such  extensive  meaning 


10  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

doubtless  the  parent,  or  the  person  to  be  baptized,  it* 
lie  be  adult,  ought  to  choose  which  way  he  best  approves. 
What  God  has  left  indifferent  it  becomes  not  ma:^  to 
make  necessary." 

This  passage  must  be  extremely  interesting,  and  edi- 
fying, to  all  the  members  of  the  Methodist  church! — 
The  soul  of  my  friend  Mr.  Terrell  must  "delight  itself 
in  fatness,"  when  he  reads,  "Christ  no  where  requires 
dippins^,  but  only  hantizingy  This  never  could  have 
been  intended  for  any  accountable  being  in  the  world 
for  it  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  stupid  things  that  f 
have  seen  in  print.  The  meaning  of  it  is,  Christ  did 
not  require  his  command  to  be  obeyed  in  English,  but 
only  in  Greek.  This  writer  says,  the  word  baptize 
means  to  sprinkle,  as  well  as  to  dip.  If  the  word  means 
to  dip,  Christ  must  have  required  dipping,  unless  our 
writer  intends  to  say,  Christ  no  ^vhere  requires  dipping, 
he  only  requires <^?)?. 

Now,  let  it  be  remembered,  and  never  let  it  be  for- 
gotten, that  this  standard  work  of  the  M.  E.  Church 
declares,  that  baptize  means  to  sprinkle,  pour,  and  im- 
merse. It  gives  to  bapfizo  three  meanings,  and  gives  not 
an  intimation  that  it  has  any  other  meaning.  Mr.  Ter- 
rell then,  is  solemnly  bound  to  defend  his  Methodism, 
if  defended  it  can  be.  It  will  not  do  for  him  to  resort 
to  the  common,  but  stupid  plea,  that  he  has  nothing  to 
prove  for  this  will  only  prove  to  the  audience  that  he 
knows  he  has  nothing  to  prove,  sure  enough,  and  that 
he  is  conscious  of  being  unable  to  prove  any  thing.  I 
have  never  known  any  one  offer  that  plea,  who  had  any 
thing  better  to  offer.  To  see  a  man  stand  up  before 
an  audience,  and  say,  "My  opponenthas  all  to  do,  and  I 
have  nothing,"  proves  him  to  be  a  do  little,  know  noth- 
ing sort  of  a  thing,  and  with  all  a  perfect  nothing  him- 
self. If  Mr.  Terrell  is  a  man,  and  possessed  of  the 
r-ourage  of  a  man,  let  him  come  up  to  the  work,  and 
prove,  if  he  can,  that  baptizo  means  not  only,  to  im- 
merse, but  sometimes  to  sprinkle,  and  sometimes  to  pour 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  1 1 

There  is  no  party  in  the  world,  that  pretends  to 
baptize  in  any  way,  but  what  practices,  either  sprink- 
ling, pouring  or  immersion.  There  is  no  party  known 
to  me,  that  claims  that  any  other  mode  is  baptism. — 
The  issue  then  is,  Doesbaptizo  mean  only  to  immerse, 
or  does  it  mean  to  sprinkle  as  well  as  to  immerse?  I 
affirm  the  former,  Mr.  Terrell  the  latter. 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  proof  of  my  proposition,  I 
must  premise  a  little  further. 

1  wish  to  inform  Mr.  Terrell,  and  the  audience,  that 
haptizo  is  the  only  word  about  which,  I  affirm  anything 
in  the  discussion  of  this  proposition.  I  will  defend  bap- 
tizo  but  I  will  not  defend  any  other  word,  belonging  to 
its  family.  I  know  that  many  of  the  most  eminent 
men  that  ever  lived,  have  defended,  successfully  defen- 
ded, not  only  baptizo,  as  meaning  to  dip,  but  all  of  its 
relations;  but  this  was  a  work  which  they  were  not 
called  upon  to  perform. 

There  are  a  great  many  reasons  why  the  advocate  of 
immersion  is  not  called  upon  to  defend  every  word, 
which  belongs  to  the  family  of  baptizo;  some  of  which 
1  will  give. 

1.  It  is  not  true  of  the  words  of  any  family,  that  ev- 
ery word  in  the  family  has  precisely  the  same  meaning; 
so  of  course,  in  defending  one,  you  are  not  bound  to 
defend  all. 

Z.  Primitive  words  very  frequently  have  two  or  more 
meanings,  while  an  instance  cannot  be  found,  in  all  the 
history  of  its  derivative,  where  it  has  more  than  one  of 
the  meanings  of  the  primitive  word.  This  is  the  case 
with  bapto,  and  baptizo.  Bapto  means  to  dip,  and  to 
dye;  baptizo  means  to  dip,  but  it  never  means  to  dye. 

o.  A  third,  and  still  better  reason,  why  I  will  not  de- 
fend any  other  word,  is,  baptizo  is  the  only  word  used, 
by  Christ  and  the  apostles  to  designate  the  ordinance  of 
baptism.  The  reason  they  had  for  not  using  any  oth- 
er word,  is  my  reason  for  not  defending  any  other. 

4.     We  have  not  time  to  examine  any  other  word; 


1-  DEBATE  ON  BAFTISM 

for  Mr.  Terrell  has  refused  to  debate  this  propositiou 
more  than  one  day.  If  he  should  find  himself  hard 
pressed  for  something  to  sa)%  and  should  manifest  a  dis- 
position to  debate  hapto^  instead  ofbaptizo,  Twill  inform 
him  now,  that  I  am  prepared  to  meet  him^  at  any  con- 
venient time  and  place,  and  prove  that  bapto,  has  two 
meanings,  and  only  two. 

The  reason  why  I  make  these  remarks  is,  I  am 
well  acquainted  with  the  i/is,  and  oiUs  of  men  v/ho 
have  nothing  to  say  in  defence  of  their  positions.  You 
will  hear  my  friend  when  he  takes  the  stand,  talk  about 
every  thing,  except  the  practice  of  himself  and  party. 
He  will  make  baptizo  mean  any  thing,  every  thing,  or 
nothing,  to  suit  the  conveniences  of  his  Methodism. — 
Mark  what  I  tell  you;  he  will  not  dare  to  aflirm  that  it 
means  to  sprinkle. 

As  the  meaning  of  every  word,  in  every  language, 
is  determined  by  its  history  in  the  language  to  which  it 
belongs;  my  first  argument  in  support  ot  ni}^  proposi- 
tion, shall  be  drawn  from  the  Greeks  themselves.  I 
have  great  respect  for  the  opinions  of  learned  men,  but 
I  am  not  willing  to  sit  down  and  say  a  thing  is  so,  be- 
cause they  say  so.  Dr.  Carson  says,  and  a  greater 
than  he,  has  not  recently  spoken;  nor  will  there  in  my 
opinion,  for  some  time  to  come.  "The  meaning  of  ev- 
ery word  must  ultimately  be  determined,  by  an  actual 
inspection  of  the  passages  in  which  it  occurs." 

Why  should  it  not  be  so?  Are  not  the  people  who 
speak  alangnage,  the  best  judges  of  the  meaning  of  a 
word  in  their  language?  Both  Mr.  Terrell  and  mysell'. 
for  want  of  more  extensive  reading,  are  compelled  to 
rely  on  others  for  the  testimony  of  Greeks.  I  will  there- 
fore, proceed  to  lay  before  you  their  testimony,  as  it  is 
given  by  Dr.  Carson,  in  his  able,  and  triumphant  work 
on  baptism. 

Polybius,  applies  the  word  to  soldiers  passing  through 
water,  ^^baptizcd  up  to  the  breast.-'' 

Surely  the  word  baptizo  cannot  mean  to  spinkle 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  13 

nerB.  In  wading  a  river  men  do  not  sprinkle  but  im- 
merse themselves  up  to  the  breast.  That  part  only  is 
baptized,  which  is  iindtr  water.  The  part  above  water 
was  not  baptized.  If  a  little  water,  when  sprinkled 
on  the  face,  is  baptism,  why  does  Polybius  say,  that  only 
is  baptized,  which  is  itndtr  vater? 

Plutarch,  speaking  of  a  Roman  general,  dying  of  his 
wounds,  says,  "that  having  baptized  his  hand  in  blood, 
he  wrote  the  inscription  for  a  trophy."' 

Here  the  meaning  of  the  word  cannot  be  questioned. 
He  does  not  mean  that,  he  sprinkled  his  hand  in  blood; 
for  that  would  make  nonsense;  biit  that  he  dipped  his 
hand  in  blood,  to  write  the  inscription.  How  do  men 
write?  When  we  write,  we  all  know  that  we  do  not: 
sptiriklc,  but  dip  the  pen  in  the  fluid.  If  dippinij;  an  in- 
strument into  a  coloringlluid  is,  by  Plutarch  called  bap- 
tizing it;  what  can  baptism  be  but  immersion? 

Lucian,  makes  Timan  the  man-hater,  say,  that  "If  in 
winter  the  river  should  carry  away  any  one  with  its 
stream,  and  the  person  with  outstretched  hands  should 
beg  to  be  taken  out  of  the  river,  I  would  drive  him  from 
ihe  bank,  and  baptize  him  headlong,  so  that  he  would 
not  be  able  again  to  lift  his  head  above  water.'''' 

The  meaning  of  baptize  is  fixed  in  this  passage  with- 
out doubt,  to  be  immersion.  If  putting  a  man  under 
water ^  so  that  he  cannot  lift  his  licad  above  it^  is  baptizing 
him,  what  honest  man  can  say,  that  any  thing  short  of 
immersion  is  Christian  baptism?  Mr.  Carson,  remarks 
upon  this  passage  from  Plutarch,  as  follows. 

"To  resist  such  evidence,  requires  a  hardihood  which 
I  do  not  envy.  Having  such  examples  before  my  eyes, 
I  cannot  resist  God  to  please  men." 

From  the  examples  already  given,  it  may  be  seen, 
that  when  a  part  only  is  under  water,  that  part  only  is 
.said  to  be  baptized,  and  when  the  whole  man  is  under, 
the  whole  man  is  said  to  be  baptized.  Thatow/^  is  bap- 
tized, which  is  under  water.     Let  that  be  remembered. 

Diodoras  Liculus,  speaking  of  the  drowning  of  ani- 


l4  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

mals  in  water  says,  that  "When  the  water  overflows 
the  country  many  of  the  land  animals  baptized  in  the 
river  perish."  This  needs  no  comment,  to  evince  to  the 
most  unbelieving  that  immersion,  and  imm.ersion  only, 
is  the  meaning  of  this  passage.  We  all  know  how  ani- 
mals perish,  in  the  time  of  a  great  flood.  No  man 
who  values  his  reputation,  would  say  that  animals 
perish  in  the  time  of  a  great  flood,  by  having  a  little 
water  sprinkled  on  their  faces.  The  land  animals,  were 
not  baptized  until  they  were  under  the  water. 

Strabo,  says  Dr.  Gale,  is  very  plain  in  several  in- 
stances: speaking  of  the  lake  near  Agiigentum,a  town 
on  the  south  shore  of  vSicily  now  called  Gergenti,  he 
says  "Things  which  otherwise,  will  not  swim,  do  not 
baptize  in  the  water  of  this  lake,  but  float  like  wood." 

"And  there  is  a  rivulet  in  the  south  part  of  Cappado- 
oia,"  he  tells  us,  "whose  waters  are  so  buoyant  th  it  ii' 
an  arrow  is  thrown  in,  it  will  hardly  sink,  or  be  baptized 
into  them." 

Jn  another  place,  he  says,  "The  bitumen  floats  atop, 
because  of  the  nature  of  the  water  which  admits  no 
diving:  for  if  a  man  goes  into  it,  he  cannot  sink,  or  be 
baptized,  but  is  forcibly  kept  above  water.'" 

"Now  in  these  several  passages,"  says  Dr.  Carson, 
"the  model  meaning  of  the  word  is  confirmed  in  so  clear 
express,  and  decisive  a  manner,  that  obstinacy  itself 
cannot  find  a  plausible  objection.  Things  which  sink 
in  other  waters,  will  not  sink  or  be  baptized  in  the  wa- 
ter of  this  lake.  This  is  immersion,  and  nothing  but 
immersion.  Sprinkling,  and  pouring,  and  popping 
and  wetting  and  washing  and  purifying,  and  embuing, 
and  dedicating,  consecrating,  with  the  various  mean- 
ings that  have  ever  been  forced  on  this  word, are  mean- 
ings invented  merely  to  serve  a  purpose." 

Why  cannot  a  man  be  baptized  in  the  water  of  thib 
lake?  Because  the  buoyfincj)  of  the  water  forcibly  kept 
him  above.  That  is,  he  cannot  be  baptized  because  he 
cannot  go  vnder  the.  water.     Let  that  be  remembered. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  15 

Why  cannot  things  which  sink  in  other  waters,  be 
baptized  in  the  waters  of  this  lake?  Because  they 
''"float  like  wood^'''  do  not  go  under  the  water,  and  of  course 
cannot  be  baptized  without  going  under.  Let  that  be 
remembered. 

Why  cannot  the  bitumen  be  baptized  in  this  lake? — 
because  it  floats  atop^^  and  because  of  the  "nature  of 
the  water,  which  admits  no  diving.'^  It  cannot  be  bap- 
tized because  it  cannot  go  under  the  water ^  so  as  to  be 
immersed.     Let  that  be  remembered. 

These  passages  from  Strabo,  not  only  prove  that 
baptizo  means  to  immerse,  but  that  it  never  has  any 
other  meaning;  for  if  it  were  possible  to  baptize  a  man 
without  immersing  him,  Strabo  never  would  have  said> 
he  cannot  be  baptized,  because  he  cannot  go  under  th'. 
water. 

If  Strabo  understood  the  Greek  language,  and  if  he 
was  competent  to  decide  upon  the  meaning  of  a  Greek 
word,  then  my  proposition  is  true,  and  immersion  is  e^- 
sential  to  christian  baptism. 

Heradicles  Pontieus,  moralizing  the  fable  of  Mars 
being  taken  by  Vulean,  says,  "Neptume  is  ingeniously 
supposed  to  deliver  Mars,  from  Vulean,  to  signify  that 
when  apiece  of  iron,  is  taken  red  hot  out  of  the  fire, 
SLYid baptized  into  water,  the  heat  is  repelled  and  extin- 
guished, by  the  contrary  nature  of  the  water." 

If  the  iron,  was  baptized  into  water,  so  as  to  extin- 
guish the  heat,  it  certainly  was  immersed. 

Themistius  Orat,  says,  "The  pilot  cannot  tell  but  he 
may  save  one  in  his  voyage,  that  had  better  be  bapiixed 
into  the  sea,  and  drowned." 

If  putting  a  man  under  water,  so  as  to  drown  him,  is 
baptizing  him,  what  can  baptism  be  but  immersion? 

The  man,  who  can  advocate  sprinkling  in  the  face  of 
testimony  like  this,  has  a  conscience  wholly  unlike  mine , 
and  can  do,  what  I  would  tremble  to  do.  Let  Mr.  Ter- 
rell produce  a  passage  from  any  one  of  the  classics. 


IG  JDEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

where  baptizo  has  the  meaning  of  sprinkle,  or  pour  for 
which  he  contends.  I  boldly  and  fearlessly  affirm,  he 
cannot  do  it.  I  conclude  my  address  in  the  languagt; 
of  Dr.  Carson,  "Baptizo  in  the  whole  history  of  the 
Greek  language  has  but  one  meaning.  It  not  only  sig- 
nifies to  dip,  or  immerse,  but  it  never  has  any  other 
meaning." 

[mr.  teerells  first  reply.] 
Gentlemen  Moderators,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

I  feel  myself  in  an  attitude  somewhat  different  from 
what  I  have  ever  before  occupied.  I  never  occupied 
precisely  the  same  ground  before,  and  consequently  do 
not  feel  quite  as  much  at  home  as  I  could  wish,  and  as 
I  hope  to,  after  awhile.  Our  discussion  is  one  most 
assuredly  of  the  highest  importance.  Christian  bap- 
tism is  surely  a  subject  of  great  moment,  and  one 
the  proper  understanding  of  which,  is  of  the  highest  im- 
portance. It  is  a  subject  which  is  viewed  by  the  com- 
munity at  large,  as  one  of  great  importance.  For  my 
own  part,  I  felt  willing  to  consider  the  question  to  be 
discussed  to-day  a  settled  question.  The  debate  be- 
tween Mr.  Campbell  and  Dr.  Rice,  in  Lexington,  Ken- 
tucky, I  consider,  and  I  think  my  brethren  also  consid- 
er an  end  to  the  dispute,  and  a  final  settlement  of  the 
whole  question  concerning  the  mode  of  baptism.  My 
friend  Mr.  Pritchard  seems  to  think  otherwise,  and  in- 
sists on  a  discussion  of  the  question.  It  is  therefore 
simply  to  gratify  him  and  his  brethren,  who  appear  not 
to  be  satisfied,  that  I  have  consented  to  go  into  the  dis- 
cussion and  not  because  there  is  any  uneasiness  in  the 
Methodist  church. 

It  will  be  necessary  for  me  to  place  the  question 
fairly  before  you,  and  then  I  want  you  to  keep  it  in  your 
minds.  He  does  not  affirm  that  immersion  is  baptism 
simply;  but  his  proposition  is  that  "immersion  is  es.sen- 
tial  to  baptism."     Our  opposers  say,  that  baptize  is  a  spe 


AKD  THE  HOLY  SpmiT.  17 

eiHc  action,  and  that  it  means  to  dip,  plan^e,  immerse^ 
and  consequently  all  who  have  not  been  dipped,  are 
Tiot  baptized.  Therefore,  the  gentleman  is  not  to  prove 
that  immersion  is  baptism,  for  we  all  admit  that,  but 
he  is  to  prove  that  immersion  o?!-'?/  is  baptism.  This 
is  what  I  think  he  never  can  do. 

The  burden  of  proof  rests  on  m}^  opponent,  and  on 
immersionists  Vvdierever  the  subject  is  discussed.  Mr. 
Campbell  conceded  this,  in  the  debate  with  Rice.  I 
will  read  you  his  proposition  : 

''  The  immersion  in  water  of  a  proper  subject  into 
the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
is  the  one,  only  apostolic  or  Christian  baptism."  JMr. 
Campbell  affirms— Mr.  Rice  denies.  If  Mr.  Campbell 
was  right,  the  whole  burden  of  proof  rests  on  my  oppo- 
sient,  and  he  has  no  last  reason  to  complain  of  the  pro- 
position. 

Mr-  P.  bias  gone  to  heathen  classics  !  This,  I  con- 
less,  was  an  uneYpected  move,  for  such  a  New  Testa- 
ment chanpion  as  he  is.  I  expected  that  he  would  go 
into  the  bible,  and  that  we  should  have  line  upon  line 
and  precept  upon  precept.  In  his  resort  to  tine  classics 
he  is  against  Mr.  Campbell,  as  1  will  show  you,  from 
the  preface  of  his  New  Translation,  which^ reads  as 
follows: 

''  We  would  also  remind  the  same  class  of  readers, 
that  an  intimate  acfjuarntance  VvHth  the  Septuagint 
Greek  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  of  essential  importance 
:.n  translating]:  the  New.  The  seventy  Hebrews  who 
translated  their  own  scriptures  into  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, gave  to  that- 1  ran. si  at  ion  the  idiom  of  their  ver- 
nacular tonjrue.  -  Their  translation,  if  I  may  so  spenk, 
is  a  sort  of  Flebrew  Greek.  The  body  is  Greek,  hut  the 
3(yijl  is  Hebrevi' ;  ~i\nA,  in  effect,  it  comes  to  this,  that,  as 
we  have  no  other  Ilrbrew  by  which  to  understand  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  but  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment;  so,  we  have  no  Greek  by  which  to  understand  the 
apostolic  writings'?,  but  the  Greek  of  the  Jewi.sh  and 
B 


13i  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Christian  Prophets.  The  parallelism  is  so  nearly  ex- 
.';ct,  that  it  substracts  but  little  from  it  to  allow,  that 
there  is  much  advantage  in  having  a  correct  knowledge 
of  the  Greek  classics.  The  Septuagint  being  read  for 
nearly  three  centuries  prior  to  the  Christian  era,  in  aO 
the  synagogues  of  the  lielrnistic  Jews,  and  being  gen- 
erally quoted  by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles,  must  havr 
essentially  eifliectcd  the  idiom  of  all  the  inspired  wri- 
tings of  the  Christian  Apostles;  consequently,  incom- 
piiiably  more  regard  should  be  paid  to  the  Septuagint, 
than  to  the  classic  use  of  Greek  terms." 

x^ow  unless  he  can  show  that  he  is  a  greater  man» 
than  Mr.  Campbell.  I  cannot  see  how  he  will  justify 
himself,  in  his  resort  to  Greek  classics!  if  i\lr.  Camp- 
bell is  right,  Mr.  P.  is  wrong.  Mr.  Campbell  says,  the 
Greek  of  the  clatssics  is  not  the  same  as  the  Greek  of 
the  Scriptures.  Here  then,  the  great  leader  of  immer- 
sionism  is  against  him,  and  on  my  side  of  the  question. 
Yes,  he  says  '-  incomparably  more  attention  should  be 
given  to  the  Septuagint  of  the  Old  Testament  than  tf^ 
the  classics.'' 

But  1  consider  the  gentleman  has  failed  in  his  refer- 
ence to  the  classics — signally  failled,  and  he  ever  must 
fail  to  get  any  support  from  that  direction.  Cam- 
beilites  say.  baptize  is  an  nUion.  Well,  let  me  refer  t(* 
the  classes  and  see  what  kind  of  an  action. 

iiippocrates  directs  concerning  a  blister  plaster,  ifii 
be  too  painful:,  "  to  bipdz'  or  jwnstcn  it  with  breast  milk 
or  Egyption  ointment."  Did  he  intend,  that  the  plas- 
ter should  I  e  immer.sed  in  breast  milk  ?  Is  this  th^ 
direction  physicians  are  accustomed  to  give  concern- 
ing blister  plasters?  Evidently  the  word  is  used  a.-i 
having  the  sense  o\  moistening. 

Now  you  will  remember  that  the  gentleman's  pro- 
position is  a  universal  proposition,  and  if  I  produCf> 
one  case  where  the  Greek  word  bopiizo  does  not  meant, 
immerse,  or  one  place  where  it  means  any  thing  else, 
he  must  most  signally  fail.     That  I  have  now  producesfc 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  \9 

one  such  a  case,  I  think,  every  person  present  must  be 
fully  convinced. 

Aristotle  fe;peaks  of  a  substance,  which,  "  if  it  is  press- 
ed, dyes  (baptei)  and  colors  the  hand."  Here  I  find  an- 
other exception  to  his  universal  proposition.  All  must 
see  that  there  could  be  no  immersion,  and  yet,  rny 
friend  affirms  that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism. 

Helodorus  says,  ''  Josephus  baptized  the  city."     Sure 
ly  he  did  not  immerse  it !     What  will  my  friend  do  with 
this  case? 

Origin  says,  "  the  prophet  hep'tzcd  the  wood  upon 
the  altar."  There  evidently  was  no  dipping  but  pour- 
ing water  upon  the  wood.  He  cannot  make  this  case 
mean  immerse.  1  want  his  special  attention  to  this  case, 

I  have  no  disposition  to  stay  amongst  the  classics 
long.  I  rely  upon  my  bible  for  proof,  and  expected  a 
bible  argument  from  a  man  so  habituated  to  extol  the 
New  Testament,  and  had  made  no  calculation,  to  seo 
him  leave  his  bible  and  resort  to  heathen  WTiters.  But 
I  think,  1  have  now  fully  met  him  with  classics,  and 
given  several  cases  which  must  ever  stand  as  unan- 
swerable objections  to  his  universal  proposition. 

If  my  friend  is  right,  none  are  baptized  but  those  who^ 
are  immersed,  and  consequently  that  all  the  world  are 
in  error,  except  the  few  Baptists,  who  are  contending 
for  my  friend's  universal  proposition.  But  I  proved 
that  he  is  mistaken,  and  that  even  a  blister  plaster  wai^ 
said  to  be  baptized,  when  it  was  clear  that  only  a  little 
breast  milk  had  been  sprinkled  on  it.  And  1  now  in- 
quire of  the  gentleman,  what  it  is  that  causes  a  blister 
plaster  to  be  painful?  Surely  it  is  because  it  becomes 
dry  and  hard,  and  requires  to  be  moistened.  And  how 
is  that  done?  by  immer:.-ing  it?  1  would  inquire  ot 
any  respectable  physician,  in  this  large  and  rf?p acta- 
ble assembly,  if  he  ever  directed  a  blister  plaster  to  b< 
immersed  to  soften  it  and  cause  it  to  become  easy  '> 
Physicians  do  not  deal  in  metaphorical  terms,  but  in 
plain  literal  language,  which  is  easily  understood,  and 


20  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

remembered.  Here  then  we  have  baptism,  and  no  im- 
niersion,  as  clear  and  plain  as  language  can  make  it. — 
And  my  friend  can  never  get  over  it. 

Again  ;  Eusebius  speaks  o^hem^^^  baptized  m  tears.'* 
Will  the  gentleman  say  he  w^as  immersed  in  tears? — 
1  think  he  will  not.  Then  immersion  is  not  essential 
to  baptism,  as  he  vainly  affirms.  Did  you  ever  know 
a  man  to  be  immersed  in  tears  ?  This  is  no  figurative 
use  of  the  v»^ord,  but  a  plain  matter  of  history.  His- 
torians do  not  deal  in  figurative  language,  but  in  the 
inost  plain  matters  of  fact.  We  all  know  what  it  is  to 
•weep  over  a  penitent  son.  It  is  nothing  strange.  AU 
know  too,  that  there  is  no  immersion  about  it.  It 
therefore  is  a  strong  case  against  the  arguments  of  my 
opponent  and  the  uhole  Baptist  ranks,  and  one  that 
can  never  be  answered. 

it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  examine  all  the  quotations 
be  has  made  from  the  classics,  for  I  admit  the  word 
laptA-io  sometimes  means  immerse,  or  that  that  is  one 
of  its  meanings  ;  but  what  I  deny  is  that  it  universal- 
ly has  that  meaning.  His  finding  an  instance,  there- 
fore, where  it  has  that  meaning,  does  nothing  towards 
si4staining  his  proposition.  I  am  therefore  through  with 
my  reply  to  all  he  has  said,  which  I  think  can  at  aJ«l 
bear  upon  the  point. 

I  have  nothing  further  to  do,  unless  I  should  ac^vanoe 
with  counter-evidence  ;  but,  as  I  see  my  time^is  almost 
out,  I  Rhall  not  do  this,  and  will  give  place,  and  hear 
what  dispusition  he  will  make  of  the  cases  I  have  in- 
troduced. 

[mr.  PRlTCriARD's  SECOND  ADI»RE»58.]  • 

Gentlemen  Moderators  : 

Mr.  Terrell  commenced  his  reply  by  informing  you, 
that  he  was  well  satified  with  the  way  this  eiTestioia 
has  been  settled  by  Mr.  Kice,  and  (thers.  Methodists 
are  quite  ea.sy,  and  well  satified  ;  but  myself  and  breth- 
ren are  unea.sy    and  dissatisfied,  and  want  discussion* 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  ^  1 

that  we  may  save  our  cause.  If  Mr.  Terrell  is  so  well 
satisfied  with  the  way  the  question  has  beeu  settled, 
why  did  he  commence  the  wa7\  by  assailing  us  in  this 
country  without  cause?  Mr.  Terrell  did  not  expect 
you,  my  Christian  friends,  to  believe  this  assertion  ;  for 
he  knows  that  you  all  know  better. 

If  Mr.  Terrell  was  really  in  good  solid  earnest  when 
he  made  that  assertion,  I  must  confess  that  he  and  hi> 
party  are  more  easily  satisfied,  than  I  and  my  brethren 
can  possibly  be. 

Mr.  Ewing,  an  eminent  defender  of  his  rantis/n,  says 
"  Baptizo  means  to  pop, ^^  Mr.  Terrell  says, ''  I  am  weii 
islied.".  Mr.  Ewing  says,  "/?op  means  a  small  smart 
quick  sound."  Mr.  Terrell  says,  "  Methodists  are  well 
satisfied  with  that."  Mr.  Ewing  says,  "  We  should  b« 
baptized  by  having  a  little  water  popped  upon  the 
turned-up  face."  Mr.  Terrell  says,  "  Methodists  arc 
quite  east/,  and  well  satified."  Mr.  Beecher  say.>, 
'•  baptizo  means  to  piu^ifyJ''  Mr.  Terrell  says,  "  I  am 
well  satisfied  with  that  too  ;"  any  way  to  keep  from 
going  ^^  down  into  the  waler,''^  as  the  apostles  did.  And 
finally  Mr.  Rice,  his  great  champion  of  washing  mem- 
ory, says,  the  Avord  in  debate  means,  "  to  wash  in  any 
way."  And  Mr.  Terrell  sa3's  that  it  is;  we  Metho 
dists  are  more  than  satisfied  with  the  way  that  Mr. 
Rice  has  settled  the  question. 

For  a  man  to  be  satisfied  with  all  the  ways  that  the 
question  has  been  settled  by  Mr.  Rice,  and  others,  hi 
must  have  a  time-serving  conscience,  that  will  stretch 
in  any  way. 

JMr.  Terrell  tells  you,  that  he  was  surprised  to  see  a 
A'ew  Testament  champion  go  to  the  classics,  and  not  to 
the  bible,  to  prove  his  proposition.  And  I  too,  am  a> 
much  surprised  as  he  can  possibly  be,  that  the  great 
champion  of  Methodism — the  hero  of  the  fraternity, 
who  has  been  fighting  the  battles  of  his  party  all  ove^' 
the  State,  for  a  number  of  years  past,  should  not  kaoAv 
that  the  classics  are  the  highest  authority  in  the  world, 


^2  &EBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

in  determining   the  meaning  of  the  word  in  debate^ 

I  suppose  the  gentleman  thinks  that,  as  we  have  no 
•creed  but  the  bible,  we  should  not  permit  our  children 
lo  use  any  other  book  but  the  bible,  in  the  study  of 
Grammar,  Mathematics,  and  Natural  Philosophy. 

Bro.  Campbell,  the  gentleman  says,  is  against  me 
in  going  to  the  classics,  to  find  the  meaning  of  words 
iu  the  New  Testament.  This  is  strange.  I  now  ask 
Mr.  Terrell,  if  Bro.  Campbell  has  ever  said,  that  biptizo, 
and  all  words  indicating  outward  physical  s^pecific 
action,  mean  one  thing  in  the  classics  and  another  in 
the  New  Testament?  Let  Bro.  Campbell  speak  for 
himself: 

"It  has  been  a  question  amongst  theologians, 
whether  the  s  cred  use,  that  is,  Jewish  and  Christian, 
Jigrees  with  the  classic  use  of  this  word ;  whether  in 
one  sentence,  the  New  Testament  writers  use  baptizo, 
as  do  all  other  writers  of  that  age  ;  a  most  singular 
question  in  such  a  class  of  words — words  indicating  out- 
ward physical  specific  action.  Such  words  are  not  the 
subjects  of  idiomatic  and  special  laic.  It  would  be  in- 
deed adopting  a  very  dangerous  principle  and  prece- 
dent that  this  word  means  one  thing  out  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  another  in  it.  The  usage  of  the  age 
and  the  context,  must  in  all  cases  decide  the  precise 
}iieaning  of  the  word — a  law  of  philology  which  I  have 
published  as  often  as  any  of  my  contemporaries,  not 
only  in  this  case,  but  in  all  others."  Lexington  De- 
bate, p.  89. 

As  I  apprehend  Mr.  Terrell  knows  but  little  about 
the  writings  of  Bro.  Campbell,  I  feel  inclined  to  read 
one  more  passage  for  his  illumination : 

•'  Mr.  Rice,  has  no  authority  for  claiming  for  baptizo 
a  special  court,  or  special  code,  or  in  any  way  to  ex- 
(Miipt  it  fi'om  the  common  rules  of  interpretation,  it 
is  not  a  word  of  idiom,  as  I  have  frequently  observed, 
tu  dip,  to  sprinkle,  to  pmr,  like  other  outward,  physical, 
and  well  defined  actions,  are  not  affected  by  any  na- 


AND  THE  HOLY  Sriftlf.  23 

tional  peculiarity.  Men  perform  these  actions  in  all 
ages,  languages,  and  countries,  in  the  same  manner. — 
/^V7i^.9/2  has  given  him  no  law,  any  more  than  Gregory 
X.  to  interpret  the  word  in  dispute,  in  any  shade  oi 
-sense,  diflering  from  Josephus,  the  Septuagint,  or  the 
Greek  classics.''''  Debate,  p.  182. 

If  Mr.  Terrell  is  as  well  acquainted  with  the  writings 
of  Bro.  Campbell,  as  he  pretends  to  be,  how  could  he 
fnake  the  assertion  that  he  is  against  me,  in  going  to 
the  classics  ?  Has  he  not  read  the  debate  ?  If  he  has 
read  the  writings  of  Bro.  Campbell,  as  he  says  he  has, 
has  he  not  seen  where  he  has  said  again,  and  again, 
that  bapiho  is  not  a  word  oVidiom  ?  and  that  it  means 
in  the  New  Testament,  what  it  means  every  where  ehc? 

Mr.  Terrell,  in  spending  so  much  of  his  time,  as  ho 
did,  in  reading  from  Bro.  Campbell,  reminded  me  of 
the  editor  who  was  so  h«'^rd  pressed  for  matcriah  to  fill 
up  his  paper,  that  he  said — 

"  These  two  lines  that  look  so  solemn, 
Are  jn.«t  put  here  to  fill  the  column." 

Bro.  Campbell  is  not  alone;  for  he  is  sustained  by 
tlie  most  eminent  men  of  all  parties.     Dr.  Carson  says  : 

"  The  meaning  of  a  word  must  ultimately  be  deter- 
:inined  by  an  actual  inspection  of  the  passages  in  which  it 
occurs^  Carson  on  baptism,  p.  56. 

Ernesti  says,  "  The  sense  of  words  depends  on  the 
usus  loqmnidi.  This  must  be  the  case,  because  the  sense 
-of  w^ords  is  conventional  and  regula.kd  w.hohj  hy  ns'igc. 
Usage  th  n  being  understood,  the  sense  of  words  is  of 
course  understood."  Principles  of  Interpretation,  p.  55. 

Again,  Ernesti  says  : 

''  The  principles  of  interpretation  are  common  to 
saci-ed  a7i  I  pj'ofane  wri'irnrs.  Of  course  the  Scrij3tures 
are  to  be  investigated  by  the  same  rules  as  other  books."' 

Prof.  Stuart,  remarks  upon  this  : 

"  If  the  Scriptures  be  a  revelation  to  men,  then  they 
are  to  be  read  and  understood  by  men.  If  the  same 
laws  of  language  are  not  observed  in  this  revelation  ns 


24  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

are  CGmrnon  to  men,  then  they  have  no  guide  to  th« 
right  understanding  of  the  Scriptures." 

Thus  speaks  Carson,  Ernesti,  Stuart,  and  common 
sense.  Indeed  there  is  not  one  great  man  in  the  world 
except  Mr.  Terrell,  but  what  agrees  with  Ernesti,  and 
Stuart,  that  the  usas  In (/uaiuli  is  the  highest  authority  in 
ascertaining  the  meaning  of  words. 

The  reason  doubtless,  why  Mr.  Terrell  regarded  my 
appeal  to  the  classics  as  an  unexpected  move  was,  be- 
cause he  knew  that  the  classics  do  not  countenance  his^ 
sprinkling,  a^s  a  meaning  of  baptizo.  All  the  reply  he 
could  make  was  to  say,  "it  was  an  unexpected  move." 
Mr.  Rice,  Mr.  Terrell's  favorite,  instead  ofsaying  it  was 
an  unexpected  move,  said,  "The  apostles  did  not  speak 
classic  Greek;  for  they  could  not  have  understood  it." 
The  Apostles  of  Christ  speaking  as  the  Spirit  of  God 
gave  them  utteiance,  and  yet  could  not  understand  or 
speak  the  Greek  language.  What  a  pity  it  is,  the  Spi- 
rit of  the  Lord  had  not  have  had  an  opportunity  of  ta- 
king a  few  lessons  in  Greek,  in  the  same  School  with 
Mr.  Rice. 

Mr.  Terrell  it  seems  has  found  it  very  convenient 
notwithstanding  my  move  was  so  unexpected,  to  favor 
us  with  a  few  passages  from  the  classics.  1  am  grati- 
fied to  see  the  old  bUstcr  jjI aster  of  Lexington  memory 
upon  the  carpet  to  day;  fori  apprehend  it  will  draio 
i.:oi\i]y  upon  Methodism,  before  this  discussion  shall  close. 
1  will  read  you  the  remarks  of  Dr.  Carson  upon  the 
blister  plaster,  about  which  Mr.  Terrell  has  had  so  ma- 
ny tilings  to  say  after  Mr.  Rice. 

"Hippocrates,"  says  Carson,  "uses  this  word  some- 
times, and  ahv'iys  in  the  sense  for  wioh  I  contend.  We 
have  seen  that  he  uses  bapto  very  often:  I  have  not  found 
bapiizo  more  than  four  times.  This  circumstance  sulli- 
cicntly  proves,  that  though  the  words  are  so  nearly  re- 
lated, they  are  not  perfectly  identical  in  signification. 
The  first  occurrence  of  it  is  on  page  254.  ^'Baptize  it 
again  in  brQa&t  milk   and  Egyptian   ointment."     He  is; 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  JI5 

speaking  of  a  blister  which  was  first  to  be  dipped  (bapto) 
in  the  ail  of  roses,  and  if  when  thus  applied,  it  should 
be  too  painful,  it  was  to  be  dij)pcd  (baptizo)  again  iis 
the  manner  above  stated/' 

Stronger  evidence  of  immersion  could  not  be  desired. 
The  blister  plaster,  if  too  painful,  w^as  to  be  baptr.ed  in 
breast  milk  and  Egyptian  ointment;  not  the  milk  and 
ointment  sprinkled  upon  the  plaster.  What  can  be 
plainer.? 

But,  lest  some  should  think  that  probably  Hippocrates 
used  this  word  in  a  sense,  differing  somewhat  from  oth- 
er writers  of  his  age,  1  will  let  him  decide  in  what  sense 
he  used  it.  Speaking  of  a  ship  sinking  by  being  over- 
loaded, he  says: 

"Shall  I  not  laugh  at  the  man  who  baptizes  his  ship  by 
overloading  it,  and  then  complains  of  the  sea,  i/iat  it 
cn^ulphs  it  with  its  curgo.^^ 

"Is  it  possible  that  a  mind  really  thirsting  for  the 
knowledge  of  God's  laws,  can  resist  such  evidence. — 
Such  a  baptism  would  surely  be  an  immersion."  Here 
we  discover  that  the  word  baptize  in  the  writings  of  Hip- 
pocrates, means  not  only  to  put  in,  but  to  put  under  the 
water. 

His  second  example  was  Eusebius's  account  ot  the 
Apostate  who  was  baptized  in  suffering  and  tears.  Mr. 
Terrell  certainly  does  not  intend  to  say,  that  the  suffer- 
ing and  mental  agony  of  that  Apostate  Avere  so  great 
that  he  shed  two  or  three  drops  of  tears.  This  would  be 
sufficiently  ludicrous  without  any  reply.  The  fact  is, 
if  Eusebius  did  use  the  word  baptizo,  he  could  not  have 
meant  any  thing  else,  but  that  the  anguish  of  that  A- 
postate  was  so  great  that  he  was  overwhelmed  in  suffer- 
ing and  tears.  Baptizo  literally  means  to  immerse, 
and  figuratively  to  overwhelm. 

The  Greeks  used  the  word  baptizo  just  as  we  use  the 
word  immerse.  How  often  do  we  say,  "He  is  immersed 
in  sufl'ering,  immersed  in  debt,  and  immersed  in  busi- 
ness?    I  can  produce  examples  numerous  and  various 


26  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

where  the  Greeks  speak  of  persons  baptized  in  sufferiiig, 
m  debt,  in  calamity:  but  who  would  understand  them 
lo  mean  anything  differing  from  what  we  mean,  by 
^'immersed  in  debt,  in  calamity,  and  in  business?" 

In  looking  over  some  of  the  works,  published  by  the 
party  to  which  Mr.  Terrell  belongs,  I  find  where  the 
writers  give  this  from  Eusebius  among  other  examples 
from  the  classics;  and  while  they  give  the  original  of 
other  passages,  not  one  of  them  has  dared  to  give  the 
original  of  this.  This  circumstance  has  led  me  to  doubt 
whether  Eusebius  used  the  word  ba.  tizo.  If  he  did  not, 
the  pa.ssage  has  nothing  more  to  do  with  this  discussion, 
than  it  has  with  a  discussi'on  on  universal  salvation. 
]  do  not  know  what  word  he  used,  but  I  deny  that  he 
vi.sed  the  word  taptizo.  Let  Mr.  Terrell  show  that  he 
did  if  he  can.  If  Mr.  Terrell  should  fail  to  show  that 
T'^usebius  used  the  word  about  which  we  are  debating, 
what  respect  must  this  congregation  have,  for  that 
which  he  manifests,  when  he  makes  Eusebius  say,  what 
he  never  did  say. 

The  passage  from  Ari.stotle  has  nothing  to  do  with 
this  discussion.  Aristotle  does  not  use  the  word  bap- 
Hzo,  about  which  we  are  debating.  Bapto,  the  word 
used  by  him,  means  color  as  well  as  to  dip.  Baptho 
means  to  dip,  but  it  never  means  to  ador.  The  color- 
ing matter  of  which  Aristotle  speaks  was  in  water,  and 
when  it  was  pressed  down  under  the  water  with  the 
hand,  it  would  color  the  hand.  He  does  not  say  the 
hand  was  immersed,  sprinkled  or  poured,  but  that  it 
was  colored.  But  the  fact  is,  the  hand  was  both  im- 
niersed  and  colored.  I  stated  in  my  first  speech,  that 
biipio  had  two  meanings,  one  to  dip,  the  other  to  dye. — 
But  with  bapto  we  have  nothing  to  do  to-day.  Baptize 
is  the  only  w^ord  used  in  the  bible  to  denote  the  ordin- 
ance of  baptism;  so  it  is  the  only  word,  about  which 
I  affirm  any  thing  in  the  discussion  of  this  proposition. 
As  I  have  proved  that  it  means  to  immerse,  let  Mr. 


AND  THE  UOLY  SPIRIT.  Ifif 

Terrell  prove  that  it  means  either  to  sprinkle,  pour  or 
color,  if  he  can. 

Helodorus,  Mr.  Terrell  says,  speaks  of  "Josephus 
baptizing  the  city."  If  it  were  not  for  the  seriousness 
of  the  subject  1  would  laugh  right  out  at  this.  I  knew 
that  Josephus,  in  speaking  of  a  city  being  ruined  or 
^un'i  b!j  rabbe?^s,  says,  '-Those,  indeed,  even  without 
faction,  afterwards  hapiized  ike  cihj  in  ruins  f^  but  that 
Helodorus,  or  any  one  else  ever  said,  that  "Josephus 
baptized  the  city,"  is  something  new. 

His  last  example  is  a  clea-r  case  of  immersion. 

The  Prophet  Elijah,  as  we  learn  from  1  Kings,  \H 
chap.,  made  an  altar,  and  made  a  trench  about  the 
altar,  put  the  wood  in  order,  and  poured  twelve,  barrels 
of  water  on  the  alter,  and  wood;  so  that  the  trench 
was  filled,  and  the  altar  and  wood  covered  with  water. 
He  then  called  upon  the  God  of  his  Fathers,  and  fire 
fell  from  heaven  and  consumed  the  altar,  the  wood, 
and  the  sacrifice  while  immersed  in  water.  Origin,  in 
speaking  of  it,  says,  the  fire  came  from  heaven  and 
•consumed  the  wood,  while  it  was  baptized  in  water. 
It  would  be  a  splended  miracle  to  record,  for  Origin 
to  say,  the  Prophet  performed  a  mighty  and  stupend- 
ous work.  Well,  what  did  he  do  ?  Why  he  caused 
wood  to  take  fire  and  consume,  upon  which  a  few 
•drops  of  water  had  been  sprinkled. 

Having  shown  that  the  reply  of  jMr.  Terrell  is  no  re- 
ply at  all,  and  having  proved  that  baptizo  among  the 
"classics  means  to  immerse,  and  only  to  immerse,  1  will 
in  the  remiaining  part  of  my  address,  ofier  my  second 
argument;  which  shall  be  drawn  from  the  testimony 
of  eminent  men,  on  Mr.  Terrell's  side  of  this  question. 
If  he  wishes  to  reply  to  this  my  second  argument,  let 
him  show  that  my  brethren  are  those  who  agree  with 
me  that  immersion  only  is  baptism,  have  said  as  much 
in  favor  of  his  sprinkling,  as  eminent  men  of  his  party 
liave  in  favor  of  the  truth. 

As  John  Calvin  seems  to  be  closely  related  in  some 


its  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

way  to  the   Father    of  sprinkling,  I   will   commence 
with  him. 

Calvin.  "  The  word  baptizo  signifies  to  immerse  and 
the  rite  of  immersion  was  observed  by  the  ancient 
church. 

Luther  says  :  "  Baptism  is  a  Greek  word,  and  may 
be  translated  immersion,  as  when  we  immerse  some- 
thing in  water,  that  it  may  be  loholly  covered.'" 

Beza,  says,  "  Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized  ; 
by  which  word,  it  is  certain,  immcrsvm.  is  signified." 

YiTRLNGA,  says,  "  The  act  ol  baptising  is  the  immer- 
sion of  be Ue vers  in  waters.  This  expresses  the  fora^ 
and  mcaayng  of  ihe  word,  Tlius  also  it  was  performed 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles." 

HospiNiANAs,  says,  "  Christ  commands  us  to  be  bap- 
tized ;  by  which  word  it  is  ccrlain  immersion  is  sig- 
nified." 

G  RTLERiJs,  says,  "  To  baptize,  among  the  Greeks,  i^> 
undoubtevlly  to  immerse,  to  dip  ;  and  baptism  is  im- 
mersion, dipping.  The  thing  commanded  by  our 
Lord,  is  baptism,  immersion  into  water." 

BuDDKus,  says,  "  The  words  baptizein  and  baptisonos, 
are  not  to  be  interpreted  of  sprinkling,  but  always  of 
immev:vion." 

Sa..m  s'us,  says,  "  Baptism  is  immersion,  and  was  ad- 
ministered in  former  times,  according  to  the  force  and 
meaiii"g  of  the  word." 

Ve:;;cma,  says,  "  The  w^ord  baptizein,  to  baptize,  i.s 
nowhere  used  in  the  scripture  for  sprinkling." 

Having  now  heard  nine  of  the  German  witers  of 
the  era  of  the  lleformation,  I  shall  next  adduce  th?^ 
opinivii;  of  the  modern  German  critics  or  ecclesiasticai 
histo'iriiS. 

Proilosor  Fritsciie,  says,  "  That  baptism  was  per- 
formed lio!  by  spiinkling,  but  by  immersion,  is  evi- 
dent, not  only  from  the  nature  of  the  word,  but  from 
Rom.  vL  i 

Aug  ;3Tf,  says,  "  Baptism,  according  to  etymolopj  and 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  29 

dmge  signifies  to  immerse,  submerge,  &c. ;  and  the 
choice  of  the  expression  betrays  an  age  in  which  the 
latter  custom  of  sprinkling  had  not  been  introduced." 

Bf^ENNER,  says,  *'  The  word  (baptizo)  cor rosponds  in 
signification  with  the  German  word,  taufen,  to  sink  in- 
to the  deep." 

The  author  of  the  Free  Inquiry  respecting  baptism, 
says,  "  Baptizo  is  perfect  dly  identical  with  our  word 
immersion  or  submersion.  Jf  immersion  underwater 
is  for  the  purpose  of  cleansing  or  washing,  then  the 
word  means  cleansing  or  washing." 

Bretschneider,  in  his  Theology  of  1828,  says,  ''  An 
entire  immersion  belongs  to  the  nature  of  baptism. — 
This  is  the  meaning  of  the  word."  This  writer  is  con- 
fessedly the  most  critical  lexicographer  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Paulus,  says,  "  The  word  baptize  signifies,  in  Greeks 
sometimes  to.  immerse,  sometimes  to  .submerge."  He 
does  not  say,  with  Mr.  Terrell,  it  sometimes  means  to 
iiTimerse  and  sometimes  to  sprinkle. 

RiiEiNHARD,  says,  "  In  sprinkling,  the  symbolical 
meaning  of  the  ordinance  is  wholly  ioaty 

Sholz,  says,  "  Baptism  con.sists  in  the  immersion  of 
the  whole  body  in  water." 

Bretsghneider,  says,  "  In  the  word  baptizo  and  bap- 
tisma,  is  contained  the  idea  of  a  complete  immersion 
under  water  ;  a.t  least  so  is  baptima  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment." 

I  shall  conclude  the  testimony  of  the  modern  Ger- 
xnan  scholars  by  that  of  Neandcr,  whose  amiable  can- 
dor adds  lustre  to  his  fame  as  a  historian.  In  his  letter 
to  Mr.  Judd  he  observes :  "  As  to  your  question  on  the 
original  rite  of  baptism,  there  can  be  no  doubt  what- 
ever, that  in  the  primai;ive  times  it  Vv-as  performed  by 
immersion,  to  signify  a  complete  immersion  into  the 
new  principle  of  the  divine  life,  which  w\as  to  be  im- 
parted by  the  Messiah."  Henton's  history  of  baptism, 
page  54  to  57.  (Time  expired.) 


g(J>  DEBATE  ON  BAPTIBM 

[MR.  Terrell's  second  reply.] 

Christian  friends;  I  hope  I  shall  not  be  understood  by 
what  Mr.  ^-  may  say  of  me.  He  represents  me  as  say- 
in^  the  apostles  couid  not  understand  classic  Greek.  I 
hope  1  shall  be  able  to  make  myself  understood  with- 
out your  relying  upon  his  representation.  1  have 
brought  the  leader  of  his  party  to  show  that  apostl^^sdid 
not  write  classic  Greek.  But  1  did  not  say  that  they 
could  not  understand  it.  The  gentleman  read  from  Mr- 
Campbell,  in  the  Debate  with  Mr.  Rice,  to  show  thai, 
what  1  said  of  Mr.  Campbell  was  not  correct.  Accord - 
.ino-  to  the  quotation  he  has  made  Mr.  Campbell  has 
crossed  his  own  track.  The  reason  perhaps,  of  his  thu-i 
crossing  his  own  track  was,  that  he  was  hard  pressed 
by  Mr.  iiice. 

but  1  am  not  done  with  hew  Testament  usage--  I 
will  show  you  from  the  Debate— [Here  Mr.  T.  took  up 
the  Debate  between  Cainpbell  and  Rice,  and  after  tur- 
nin^^  the  leaves  back  and  forth  closed  it  and  said,]  How- 
ever it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  read. 

Mr.  Pritchard  has  told  you  what  course  I  would  pur- 
sue in  this  discussicn.  I  have  known  for  .some  time  that 
he  was  a  man  of  a  great  deal  of  sagacity,  but  I  did  not 
know  that  he  was  a  prophet  before.  It  does  not  require 
a  great  deal  of  sagacity,  however,  to  tell  what  course 
he  will  pursue. 

He  told  you  that  the  blister  plaster  is  on  the  carpet.- 
1  did  not  know  the  blister  plaster  was  on  the  carpet  be- 
fore, but  thought  it  was  on  his  immersion.     I  think  yet 
that'itis  on  inimersion,  and  I  am  bound  to  makf  ii  stick. 

Hippocrates  did  not  say  it  was  to  be  d.p.cd,  us  the 
p-entlVman  says.  It  was  not  customary  to  dij)  plasters 
but  to  anoint  them.  Mr.  Taylor,  however,  has  made  il 
anoear  that  it  was  not  the  i  laster,  but  the  blister—th*^ 
y  pac^,  on  the  man  that  was  to  be  baptized.  They 
did  not  dip  the  sore  place,  but  washed  ii,  as  was  custo- 
mary in  such  cases.  .- 

The  gentleman  tells  you  that  baptism  of  tears  is  fig- 


AND  THE  HOLY  8PIR1T.  31 

tirative.  What  is  it  a  figure  of?  Is  it  a  figure  of  im- 
mersion? It  cannot  be  a  figure  of  dipping.  It  is  a  fig- 
ure of  sprinkling,  if  it  be  a  figure  at  all.  But  it  cannot 
favor  immersion,  whether  it  be  figurative  or  literal.  1 
then,  contend  that  it  is  decidedly  in  my  favor,  and  a- 
gainst  Mr.  P. 

Mr.  P.  differs  from  Mr.  Campbell,  for  Mr.  C.  main- 
tain:^ that  the  word  taptizo  not  only  puts  a  person  under 
water,  but  the  the  termination  :o,  brings  him  out  again. 
If  Mr.  P.  is  right,  the  great  leader  of  his  party  is  wrong! 
Is  Mr.  P.  a  greater  man  than  Mr.  Campbell?  His 
friends  would  hardly  allow  that  he  is.  Be  that  as  it 
may,  they  differ  very  widely,  and  I  shall  leave  them  to 
reconcile  the  difference  among  themselves. 

The  gentleman  tells  you  that  I  read  from  Mr.  Camp- 
bell merely  for  the  purpose  of  filling  up  my  time.  I 
confess  that  it  is  somewhat  of  a  waste  of  time  to  read 
his  productions,  but  on  occasions  like  the  present,  it 
sometimes  becomes  necessar3^  His  sentiments,  I  know, 
are  erroneous,  but  owing  to  the  importance  my  friend 
and  his  party  attach  to  them,  it  is  necessary  occasional- 
ly to  quote  him. 

I  will  now  read  from  the  Debate,  page  78: 

'*iMy  idea  is,"  says  Mr.  Campbell  "that  the  word  ori- 
ginally meant  not  that  dipping  should  be  performed 
frequently,  but  that  it  indicated  the  rapidity  with  which 
the  action  was  to  be  performed;  that  the  thing  should 
be  done  quickly;  and  for  this  reason  the  termination  lo 
is  never  us  when  the  word  is  employed  in  connexion 
with  the  business  of  dyers  and  tanners.  But  the  word 
laptizo  is  always  used  to  express  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism. This  is  the  best  reason  I  can  give  for  the  change 
of  the  termination  into  zo. 

"With  regard  to  the  frequent  occurrence  of  this  word 
in  the  New  Testament  usage,  1  said  that  there  might  be 
some  good  reason  given.  And  that  reason  is  fouad  in  the 
fact  ili^tbapiA)  means  to  dip,  without  regard  to  contin 
nance  long  or  short,  but  bapiizo  intimates  the  subject  oil 


32  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

the  action   is  not  necessarily  long  kept  under  that  into 
which  it  is  immersed." 

To  this  Mr.  Rice  replied  by  saying,  after  showing  tliat 
Joseph  us  speaks  of  the  baptizing  of  a  ship  which  sunk 
xo  the  bottom  and  never  got  out,  "But  the  sinking  of 
the  ship,  says  my  friend,  Mr.  Campbell,  was  merely  ac- 
cidental. And  so,  if  we  are  to  believe  Mr.  Carson,  is 
the  raising  the  person  out  of  water.  For  he  says, 
'whether  the  thing  goes  to  to  the  bottom  or  is  raised  out 
of  the  water,  cannot  be  learned  from  the  word  bapiv.o' 
But  1  ask  is  not  the  raising  the  person  out  of  the  water 
in  essential  part  of  his  baptism?  The  gentleman,  how- 
i3ver,  dips  them  by  the  word^  and  raises  them  out  of  the 
water  by  'ccultntr 

]f  theship  was  baptized  and  sunk  to  the  bottom,  and 
the  termination  %o  did  not  bring  it  out,  as  Mr.  Campbell 
says.  But,  if  Mr.  Campbell  is  right,  when  it  sunk  to  tlie 
bottom,  they  must  in  some  way  have  got  it  out  again. 
But  Mr.  P.  says  Mr.  Campbell  is  wTong,  and,  as  I  said 
before,  we  will  leave  them  to  fight  it  out  among  them- 
selves. 

The  gentleman  ha«  read  from  Martin  Luther  and 
others  to  prove  his  proposition.  Notone  of  his  witne»^:- 
es  says,  it  means  al  -ays  to  immerse.  xVTartin  Luther 
does  not  say,  that  it  always  means  to  immerse,  but  that 
it  seems  to  require  immerse.  This  comes  greatly  below 
liis  universal  proposition,  that  baptize  always  mean-  to 
immerse^  or  that  immerK^ion  is  essential  to  christian  bap- 
tisin. 

I  v.ill  now  read  from  several  learned  authorities,  also 
to  show  what  they  have  said  on  my  side  of  the  question. 
j  will  first  read  from  Parkhurst:  he  defines  the  ^vord, 
baptize,  "to  immert^e  m  or  wadi  with  uaicr  m  token  of 
purification." 

Dr.  Owen  says,  ''Bart ho  signifies  to  wash^  as  instan- 
ces out  of  all  authors  may  be  given." 

Adam  Clark,  says,  "In  v.hat  form  baptism  was  ori- 
ginally administered,  has  been  deemed  a  subject  w(?r- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  33 

thy  of  serious  dispute.  Were  the  people  dipped  or 
sprinkled?  for  it  is  certain  baplo  and  haptizo  mean 
both." 

The  gentleman  says,  I  must  not  go  to  pedo-baptists, 
but  to  immersionists  for  authority  on  this  question.  It 
is  absurd  for  him  to  require  me  to  prove  my  practice 
from  Baptist  authorities,  as  that  would  contradict  all 
their  preaching.  But  he  says,  he  proves  his  position 
by  pedo- baptist  authorities.  But  not  one  of  his  witness- 
es from  the  pedo-baptist  ranks,  sa3's  that  nothing  but 
immersion  is  baptism.  No,  my  Christian  friends  wo^ o?ir 
of  them  says  any  such  a  thing.  He  must  then  go  to 
some  place  else  for  authority  to  prove  his  exclusive 
proposition.  He  believes  that  immersion  alone  is  bap- 
tism, and  this  he  has  labored  to  prove,  but  in  this  attempt 
he  must  fail.  Yes,  my  christian  friends,  he  evidently 
must  fail — there  is  no  help  for  him. 

1  will  here  present  another  argument.  It  is  thi?: 
His  doctrine  contradicts  the  whole  tenor  of  scripture. 
It  excludes  from  the  kingdom  of  God  all  who  have  not 
been  immersed.  I  want  him  to  show  from  God's  Avord 
that  immersion  only  is  baptism.  But  I  am  certain  that 
no  man  can  show  from  that  holy  book  any  such  an  un- 
reasonable and  exclusive  doctrine.  No,  my  christian 
friends,  he  can  prove  no  such  an  absurd  doctrine.  On- 
ly think  how  many  of  the  best,  most  pious  and  learned, 
in  all  denominations,  such  a  doctrine  at  once  cuts  off 
from  the  mercy  of  God.  He  must  be  convinced  that 
he  cannot  make  out  his.  doctrine  from  the  bible,  and 
therefore  has  fled  to  the  classic  Greeks,  and  even  there 
{have  headed  him,  and  brought  good  classic  authority 
to  show  that  the  word  baplizo  means  sprinkle  and  pour 
as  well  as  immerse.  And  I  have  proved  from  Mr. 
Campbell  the  great  leader  of  bis  party,  that  the  word 
did  not  mean  the  same  among  the  Greeks  it  did  amoni: 
the  Jews.  Mr.  Campbell  is  then,  against  the  gentleman. 
in  going  to  the  classics,  to  find  the  meaning  of  words 
In  this  Mr.  Campbell  has  shown  himself  to  be  more  cou 

C 


34  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISSI 

sistent  than  the  gentlemen,  inasmuch  as  they  are  botli 
advocates  of  the  bible,  and  while  Mr.  Campbell  stick:-* 
to  his  bible,  he  depar1;s  to  the  classics.  Thus  you  see-, 
my  christian  brethren  that  I  have  already  put  one  New 
Testament  champion  to  llight,  and  pursued  him  to  thf 
Greek  classics,  and  then  followed  him  up  so  closely  thaJ 
he  will  now  be  compelled  to  leave  them.  I  cannot  teU 
where  he  will  go  to  next. 

I  have  now  shown  that  he  is  not  sustained  by  the 
classics,  that  he  is  not  sustained  by  pedo- baptist  au- 
thorities and  that  he  is  not  sustained  by  the  bible.  But^ 
brethren.  I  bless  God,  that  Methodists  draw  their  faith 
from  God's  holy  book,  and  not  from  the  Greek  classics. 

As  my  time  has  now  almost  expired,  and  it  is  about 
noon,  1  will  close  till  I  hear  from  the  gentleman. 

Adjourned  to  meet  at  half  past  1  o'clock. 

[mr.  peitghard's  third  address.] 
Gentlemen  Moderators : 

Mr  Terrell  commenced  his  last  speech  by  telling  yos 
that  I  had  misrepresented  him  in  saying,  that  ke  had  said 
the  apostles  could  not  understand,  or  speak  classic 
Greek,  I  am  fearful  his  hearing  is  greatly  at  fault. — 
What  did  I  say?  I  said  that  Mr.  Rice,  in  his  debate  with 
Bro.  Campbell  said,  the  Apostles  did  not  speak  classic- 
Greek;  for  they  could  not  have  understood  it.  Now,  if 
the  gentleman  will  turn  to  his  third  speech  on  the  ac- 
tion of  baptism,  he  can  sec  it  for  himself. 

Mi'.  Campbell,  he  ^ells  you,  has  crossed  his  own  track, 
in  asserting  one  thing  in  the  New  Testament  and  ano- 
ther in  his  debate  with  liice.  The  difficulty  is  not  that 
Bro.  Campbell  has  crossed  his  own  track,  but  that  Mr. 
Terrell  seems  incapable  of  understanding  him.  Doom 
Bro.  Campbell  assert  in  the  New  Testament  that  bap- 
iizo  and  all  words  indicating  outward,  physical  action, 
are  subjects  of  ilioaiatic  or  special  law?  Mr.  Terrell 
knows  he  does  not.  Does  he  in  his  debate  witli  Rict- 
;assert,  that  such  words  as  laiv^Jksh  spirit,  sacrum  are 


AND  THE '  HOLY  SPIRIT.  3ft! 

-not  the  subjects  of  special  law?  Mr.  Terrell  knows  h«^ 
says  no  such  thing.  In  the  New  Testament Bro.  Camp- 
bell was  talking  about  the  qualifications  of  a  good 
Translator,  and  says,  "that  an  intimate  acquaintance 
wuth  the  Septuagint  Greek  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
-of  essential  importance  in  translating  the  New." 

Bro.  Campbell  has  always  said  in  common  with  the 
most  eminent  men  of  all  parties,  that  some  words  in 
the  New  Testament  are  the  subjects  of  idomatic  or 
special  law.  But  that  he  eversaid  that  baptizo,  or  any 
other  word  indicating  outward,  physical,  and  well  de- 
lined  action  is  a  word  of  idiom,  to  be  tried  in  a  special 
court,  as  a  heretic  is  tried,  by  a  special  law  is  not  true. 

Mr.  Terrell  has  taken  what  Bro.  Campbell  said  with 
special  reference  to  one  class  of  words  and  applied  it 
to  another  class;  and  then  with  a  look  which  seemed  to 
indicate  that  he  felt  himself  possessed  of  all  wisdom, 
and  all  knowledge  said,  "Mr.  Campbell  has  crossed  hia 
own  track." 

But  the  reason  why  he  crossed  his  own  track  he  tells 
us  was,  because  he  was  hard  pressed  in  the  debate  with 
Rice.  Well,  great  men  will  disagree  in  opinion.  His 
Bro.Jinkins,  a  Presiding  Elder  in  the  M.  E.  Church,  in 
Tennessee,  did  not  think  Bro.  Campbell  very  hard  pres- 
sed; for  when  he  had  read  the  debate,  he  just  put  that 
thing  called  Melkodism  down,  came  out,  confessed  and 
obeyed  the  truth,  and  "now  preaches  the  faith  which  he 
once  destroyed."  Mr.  Campbell  must  have  been  truly 
hard  pressed. 

The  gentleman  made  one  effort  in  his  last  speech  to 
be  a  little  smart  once  in  his  life.  I  was  highly  pleased 
to  see  him^mi'^  at  his  own  wxV,  while  the  people  present 
could  see  nothing  worth  smiling  at.  He  never  heard 
of  a  blister  plaster  on  ihe  carpet  before.  There  are  a 
great  many  things  in  this  world  he  has  not  heard  of — 
When  1  spoke  of  the  blister  plaster  being  on  the  carpel 
;all  present  understood  me,  except  Mr.  Terrell. 

.Mr.  Terrell  now  tells  us,  that  it  was  not  the  bhstef 


36  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

plaster  but  the  sore  place  on  the  man  that  was  to  be 
baptized.  Is  this  true?  Let  us  see.  Hippocrates  says, 
dip  tl>c  plaster  in  rose  oil,  and  if  when  thus  applied,  it 
should  be  too  painful,  it  must  be  taken  off',  and  dipped 
(baptizo)  again  in  breast  milk  and  Egyptian  ointment. 
That  is  according  to  Mr.  Terrell,  take  all  the  sore  place 
off  of  the  man  and  dip  it  in  rose  oil;  then  apply  it  to 
the  man  and  if  it  should  be  found  to  be  too  painful,  take 
all  the  sore  place  oft"  again,  and  dip  it  in  breast  milk  and 
Egyptian  ointment.  This  is  too  small  for  a  great  man 
like  Mr.  Terrell.  He  will  have  to  get  Mr.  Taylor,  or 
some  one  else,  to  help  him  to  something  better  than 
that. 

Instead  of  proving  as  I  called  upon  him  to  do,  and  as 
he  is  solemnly  bound  to  do,  that  Eusebius  used  the  word 
about  which  we  are  debating,  he  takes  it  for  granted 
that  he  did  and  calls  upon  me  to  show  what  it  was  a 
figure  of.  It  is  certainly  a  very  stupid  act  for  a  man  in 
a  discussion  to  take  for  granted,  the  very  thing  he  has  to 
prove.  If  Eusebius  did  use  the  word  baptizo,  it  was  a 
tigure  of  the  same  thing  the  baptism  of  Christ  was, 
when  he  was  baptized  in  suffering  for  the  sins  of  the 
world.  No  man  who  loves  the  Redeemer  will  say,  that 
when  he  was  baptized  in  suffering,  he  only  had  a  few 
drops  of  it  sprinkled  upon  him. 

Luther,  Mr.  Terrell  tells  you,  does  not  say  the  word 
baptize  means  only  to  immerse;  but  that  it  may  be 
ti-an.slated  immerse.  He  says  more  than  that.  WiM 
you  hear  him  sir? 

"And  although  it(  immersion)  is  almost  wholly  abol- 
ished (for  they  do  not  6^7?  the  whole  children,  but  only 
jjour  a  little  water  on  them)  they  ought  nevertheless  ta 
be  who  bj  imm'T.cd  and  then  immediately  drawn  out, 
for  that  the  etymology  of  the  word  seems  to  demand." 

The  etymology  of  the  word,  he  says,  demands  that 
the  person  to  be  baptized  be  wholly  immersed  and  im- 
mediately drawn  out.  By  the  way,  Mr.  Terrell  com- 
plained of  me,  for  not  adopting  the  view  of  Bro.  Camp- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 


S7 


beli  that  b  iptizo  both  puts  a  person  under  water  and 
draws  him  out.  Well,  Bro.  Campbell  has  Luther,  and 
many  of  the  most  eminent  men  with  him.  While  h«; 
is  in  such  good  company  he  has  no  nged  of  my  de- 
fence. 

Mr.  Terrell,  I  suppose,  thinks  that  he  has  most  tri- 
umphantly answered  my  second  argument  by  readinii 
from  Dr.  Clark  where  he  says,  "baptizo  means  to  sprin- 
kle as  well  as  to  dip'''  He  certainly  deserves  a  v)le  oi 
thanks  from  the  Methodists,  for  proving  that  Methodism 
is  right,  by  the  testimony  of  Methodists. 

Why  did  he  not  if  he  wished  to  meet  my  argument 
fairly,  show  that  men  on  my  side  of  the  question  have 
said  as  much  in  favor  of  his  practice  of  sprinkling  as 
the  most  eminent  men  on  his  side  have  in  favor  of  the 
truth.  The  whole  of  his  reply  amounts  to  about  this: 
Methodists  say,  that  Methodism  is  the  truth;  therefore 
Methodism  is  the  truth. 

It  is  absurd,  he  tells  you,  for  me  to  call  upon  him  to 
read  from  Baptists  in  favor  of  his  rantism.  But  why 
is  it  absurd'^  Have  I  not  appealed  to  those  who  prac- 
tice sprinkling  to  prove,  that  the  literal  and  proper  mean- 
ing of  baptizo  is  to  immerse.  It  was  absurd  only  be- 
cause he  had  nothing  else  to  say. 

Not  one  of  my  witnesses  he  tells  you,  said  that  bap- 
tism always  means  immersion.  Was  it  because  he  did 
not  or  could  not  hear,  that  he  made  this  assertion?  i\ 
seems  to  me,  that  he  does  not  know  half  of  the  time 
what  he  does  say. 

I  have  not  time  to  read  over  and  over  again  the  samf^ 
things,  for  the  benefit  of  my  friend.  He  must  pay  bet- 
ter attention.  I  will  however,  for  the  purpose  of  show- 
ing you  how  unfounded  his  assertion  was,  repeat  the 
testimony  of  one  of  them,  and  it  is  but  the  testimony 
of  them  all. 

Buddcus,  one  of  my  witnesses  says,  "The  words  bap- 
tizein  and  baptismos  are  not  to  be  interpreted  of  sprink- 
ling, but  always  oi  immersion.'' 


38 


DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 


Can  you  hear  his  words  sir,  that  baptizo  the  very 
word  about  which  we  are  debating,  is  not  to  be  inter- 
preted of  sprinkling,  but  always  of  immersion. 

Mr.  Terrell.becarae  very  religious  towards  the  close 
of  his  last  speech  and  said  among  other  things.  "1  draw 
uiy  faith  from  God's  holy  book,  and  not  from  the  clas- 
sics." I  am  unable  to  say,  whether  it  was  because  we 
were  going  to  dinner  before  he  spoke  again,  or  because 
he  had  nothing  else  to  say  to  fill  up  his  time,  that  he 
made  this  as.sertion.  Nor  am  1  right  certain  it  is  true. 
Will  Mr.  Terrell  have  the  goodness  if  he  pleases  to  tell 
us,  in  what  part  of  God's  holy  book  he  finds  his  mourn- 
♦t's  bench,  his  class-meeting,  and  his  band  society?  1 
think  he  will  hardly  afiirm  in  this  discussion,  that  these 
}>rominent  parts  of  his  faith  are  drawn  from  God's  holy 
book. 

He  again  reiterates  the  assertion  that  baptizo  did  not 
mean  among  the  Jews  what  it  did  among  the  Greeks. 
We  will  let  Josephus,  a  Jew,  who  wrote  his  history  in^ 
Ihe  Greek  language  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  decide 
this  question  for  us.  He  certainly  ought  to  know  in 
what  sense  the  Jews,  used  Greek  words;  better  than 
any  man  now  living  can.  He  uses  baptizo  very  often, 
and  always  in  the  sense  of  irnmension.  Speaking  of" 
the  storm  that  threatened  destruction  to  the  ship  that 
i'arried  Jonah,  he  says; 

•When  the  ship  was  on  the  point  of  sinking-,  or  just 
about  to  be  bap/ized.^^ 

Did  this  Jew  who  never  used  a  Greek  word  in  the 
sense  of  the  classics,  mean  that,  "When  the  ship  was 
an  the  point  of  sinkino^,  or  just  about  to  have  a  few 
drops  of  water  sprinkled  upon  it?"  If  the  ship  was  on 
the  point  of  sinking  unde?^  the  water,  1  suppose  it  was 
just  about  to  be  immersed.     What  can  be  plainer? 

I  could  bring  forward  passages  numerous  and  various 
from  the  writings  of  Josephus,  equally  as  strong  and 
decisive  as  this;  but  one  or  two  more  will  suflice  for  the 
present.  Speaking  of  some  of  the  misfortunes  of  Ccs^ 
tius,  he  says; 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIMT.  S§ 

''After  this  misfortune  of  Cestius,  maay  of  the  Jews 
of  distinction  left  the  City,  as  people  Swim  away  from 
SI  baptizino;  ship^ 

I  wonder  if  the  people  in  the  days  of  Josephus  were 
so  silly,  as  to  jmmp  overboard  and  swim  away  from  a 
ship,  because  it  had  a  few  drops  of  water  sprinkled 
upon  it!  It  must  have  been,  if  my  friend  Mr.  Terrell's 
position  be  correct,  that  baptize  means  to  immerse  a- 
mong  the  Greeks  and  to  sprinkle  among  the  Jews.  It 
iS  vain  for  a  man  to  reason  against  facts.  We  have 
had  enough  unfounded  assertion.  Let  himgive  us  more 
argument  and  less  assertion,  and  we  will  listen  to  him 
with  more  pleasure.  Let  him  produce  one  example  in 
the  writings  of  any  Jew,  where  baptize,  means  any. 
thing  but  immerse  if  he  can.  I  fearlessly  affirm  he 
cannot  do  it.  As  this  is  a  point  upon  which  many 
graceless  assertions  have  been  made  without  any  proof, 
i  cannot  dismiss  Josephus  without  hearing  him  once 
more.  Speaking  of  the  drowning  of  Aristabulas  by  com- 
mand of  Herod,  he  says; 

^'Pressing  him  down  always  as  he  was  .swimming, 
and  baptizing  him  in  sport,  they  did  not  give  over  till 
they  entirely  drowned  him." 

Can  anything  be  more  express  and  exact  than  this? 
The  boy  was  swimming  in  a  pond,  andthe  Gallatiansby 
command  of  Herod,  b/ptized  him  by  pressing  him  down 
under  water,  so  as  to  drown  him.  What  can  baptize 
mean  anriongthe  Jews  but  to  \tui  under  water?  Let  it  be 
remembered  and  never  let  it  be  forgotten  that  Josephus 
was  a  Jew,  and  wrote  his  history  in  the  Greek  language 
in  the  very  days  of  the  Apostles.  The  reason  why  Mr- 
Terrell  and  his  party  put  in  this  miserable  plea  is,  be- 
cause they  know  that  the  whole  Greek  world  pronounce 
the  condemnation  upon  their  rantism.  As  enough  has 
been  said  to  convince  any  one,  whose  mind  is  blinded 
by  the  working  of  a  per-blind  theology,  1  will  proceed 
to  my  third  argument  which  shall  be  drawn  from  the 
use  of  the  word  in  the  bible. 


40  *  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

''Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death;  that  hke  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead 
by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life,"  Rom.  vi:  4. 

^^Buried  with  him  in  baptism^  wherein  also  ye  are  risen 
withhim.'^  Col.  11:  12. 

No  language  could  be  employed  in  human  speech 
that  could  more  definitely  fix  the  meaning  of  this  word, 
than  the  language  of  the  spirit  in  these  two  passages. 
1  solemnly  think  that  the  spirit  of  all  wisdom  inten- 
ded to /y<:'X:i^/>  the  meaning  of  this  word,  so  that  men 
who  would  practice  sprinkling  might  be  left  without 
excuse — that  they  might  do  it  knowing  that  the  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  had  said,  that  when  we  are  baptized,  we 
are,  ^^buried  in  bapiisiny  I  would  not  for  a  thousand 
worlds  like  this,  have  water  sprinkled  upon  me  in  the 
name  of  my  Lord,  and  then  give  the  lie  to  common  sense 
by  saying,  that  this  is  what  the  Spirit  of  God  mean^ 
by  being  buried  in  baptism. 

How  can  Mr.  Terrell  or  any  other  man  of  his  party* 
who  has  sprinkled  into  his  congregation  a  hundred  per- 
sons or  more,  stand  up  before  them  and  read  the  word< 
of  the  Spirit  ^''we  are  buried  with  him  in  baptism^'"'  when 
he  knows,  and  they  know,  that  it  is  not  true?  He  never 
can  make  it  mean  ^'buried  with  him  in  sprinkling.''''  Let 
it  be  remembered  and  never  let  it  be  forgotten  by  you. 
ihat  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  says,  that  Christians  "are  bn- 
rv'd  with  the  Lord  in  baptism." 

I  have  only  time  to  mention  one  more  fact  from  the 
New  Testament;  and  that  is  Christ  did  not  command, 
the  water  to  be  bapivj^d  upon  the  people,  but  the  people 
to  be  baptized  in  the  water.  It  was  not  the  wa- 
ter that  was  to  be  baptized  upon  the  people,  bat  the 
people  were  to  be  baptized  in  water.  Now,  the  mis- 
take of  Mr.  Terrell  and  his  party  is,  that  they  rantixf 
the  water  upon  the  people,  instead  of  baptizing  the  peo- 
ple in  water,  as  Christ  commanded  us  to  do.  We  can 
sprinkle  water  upon  a  man,  but  to  sprinkle  a  man  in  water 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  41 

i:i  something  that  cannot  be  done .  It  will  not  do  to  say, 
they  were  sprinkled  of  him  m  Jordan,  or  joofirtf/ of  him 
liL  the  river  Jordan;  but  it  will  do  to  say,  they  were  im- 
mersed of  him  i)i  Jordan. 

As  Mr.  Terrell  has  repeatedly  asserted  that  the  word 
about  which  we  are  debating,  does  not  mean  in  the 
TS'ew  Testament  what  it  does  in  the  classics,  I  would  be 
pleased  to  have  him  substitute  his  sprinkle  instead  oi 
baptizo  in  a  few  passages.  I  will  risk  the  whole  dis- 
cussion upon  the  assertion,  that  it  will  make  the  most 
perfect,  or  the  most  consummate  nonsense  in  every 
passage  where  baptizo  occurs.  This  fact  alone  ought 
to  settle  the  question. 

If  Mr.  Terrell  is  unwilling  to  try  his  sprinkle  or  pour. 
as  a  translation  of  baptizo,!  will  risk  the  controversy 
upon  the  assertion,  that  the  word  immerse  will  make 
good  sense  in  every  passage,  as  a  translation  of  baptizo. 

It  will  not  do  for  Mr.  Terrell  to  say,  as  some  of  his 
party  have  said,  that  the  reason  why  baptizo  cannot 
be  translated  sprinkle  is,  baptizo  is  a^^e/zerzc  word,  and 
sprinkle  is  specific  ;  for  1  defy  him  or  any  of  his  party  to 
produce  any  word  which  expresses  physical  action,  in 
any  language,  that  will  make  ^^'wer/c  i^ense,  and  sj,ecijic 
noiisensfi  at  the  same  time.  Why  does  not  baptizo 
make  generic  sense,  and  specific  nonsense  when  it  is 
translated  immerse?     Is  immerse  generic? 

I  must  now  say  a  word  or  two  on  the  preposition 
en,  commonly  translated  in.  In  the  discussion  1  had 
last  winter  with  Mr.  Manford,  I  affirmed  what  I  sol- 
emnly believe  to  be  true  ;  viz  :  that  eii  means  m  when 
it  denotes  the  place,  and  by  when  it  denotes  t\\eagei:t. 
I  defended  this  in  the  presence  of  the  champion  of  U- 
niversalism  of  Indiana,  and  1  am  now  prepared  to  do 
it  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Terrell. 

My  fourth  argument  in  support  of  my  proposition 
shall  be  drawn  from  the  fact,  that  Christ  has  used  the 
strongest  word  in  the  Greek  language  for  the  action  of 
immersion,  to  denote  the  ordinance    of  baptism.     If 


•12?  DEBATE  ON  BAPTrsM 

baptize  does  iiot  definitely  express  the  action  of  im^ 
mersion  for  which  1  contend,  then  there  is  no  word  in' 
the  Greek  language  that  does.  I  suppose  no  one  will; 
say  the  Greeks  have  no  word  for  immerse.  Let  Mr. 
Terrell  show  what  that  word  is,  if  baptizo  is  not  the 
one.  Let  him  show  that  the  Greeks  have  a  word 
which  definitely  expresses  the  action  of  immersion,  if 
baptizo  is  not  the  word.  I  assert  he  cannot  do  it. — 
The  Greek  language  has  in  it  words  which  mean  to 
nnk,  to  dive,  but  none  of  them  can  definitely  express 
{he  action  of  immersion,  if  baptizo  does  not.  The 
Greek  language  also  has  in  it  words  which  mean  to 
sprinkle,  to  pour,  and  to  wash,  but  no  one  of  them  was 
ever  used  by  the  Redeemer  to  denote  the  ordinance  of 
baptism. 

For  the  satisfaction  of  all  desirous  to  be  assured  of 
the  true  meaning  of  baptizo,  I  will  present  some  of  the 
zither  Greek  words,  which  relate  to  the  use  of  water  : 

1 .  Lavo,  to  wash  the  body. 

2.  Pluno,  to  wash  the  clothes. 

3.  Nitito,  to  wash  the  hands,  the  face,  the  feet. 

4.  Ekkco,  to  pour. 

5.  Rnntizo,  to  sprinkle. 

If  it  had  have  been  the  design  of  the  Lord  to  com- 
mand either  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  washing  the  facCy 
the  Greek  language  would  have  furnished  him  with  a/ 
word  to  express  the  very  thing  he  designed.  But  it  is 
known  to  every  one  M-ho  knows  the  Greek  Alphabet,, 
that  neither  niptn^  eklxo,  nor  rantizo  was  ever  used  by 
him  to  denote  the  ordinance  of  baptism  :  a  clear  proof 
that  he  neither  commanded  sprinkling,  pouring,  nor 
washing  the  face,  as  Mr.  Terrell  and  his  party  do. 

As  1  have  shown  that  the  Greek  language  has  in  it 
words  ior  sprinkle,  pour,  and  wash,  will  Mr.  Terrell 
have  the  goodness  to  us,  and  kindness  to  his  cause  and 
people,  to  tell  what  word  in  that  language  definitely 
means  to  immerse,  if  baptizo  is  not  the  word.  A  fail- 
are  here  (and  fail  he  must)  will  be  fatal  to  his  cause 
j.n  this  country.     (Time  expired.) 


AND  TUB  HOLY  SPIRIT. 


4^ 


[mr.  Terrell's  third  reply.] 
Gentlemen  Moderators — Christian  Friends  : 

I  am  liable  to  be  mistaken.  I  might  have  misunder- 
stood the  gentleman,  in  his  representing  me  as  saying 
that  the  apostles  could  not  understand  classic  Greek. 
He  now  says  Mr.  Rice  said  they  could  not  understand 
classic  Greek,  and  not  me.  I  did  not  quote  from  Mr. 
Rice  but  from  Mr.  Campbell.  What  has  Mr.  Rice  to 
do  with  this  discussion  ? 

I  shall  not  have  much  to  say  about  my  friend's  last 
speech.  Much  of  it  was  not  to  the  point,  and  there- 
tbre,  it  is  not  necessary  1  should  follow  him  in  all  his 
wanderings. 

I  shall  now  notice  the  plaster  and  I  think  it  will. 
stick.  The  gentleman  will  be  glad  to  get  this  plaster 
off  before  we  are  done  with  it.  I  see  it  is  already  be- 
coming painful  to  him.  As  I  told  him  before,  it  is  not 
on  the  carpet,  but  on  immersion.  No  plaster  ought  to 
be  dipped  to  make  it  easy.  As  I  said  before,  physicians 
do  not  order  blister  plasters  to  be  dipped,  but  wet,  in 
order  to  make  them  easy,  when  they  become  painful, 
by  being,  hard.  The  gentleman  cannot  get  away  from 
this  plaster. 

The  gentleman  has  been  so  kind  as  to  tellyoa  what 
course  1  would  pursue.  I  have  known  for  some  time 
that  Mr.  Pritchard  was  a  man  of  great  sagacity,  but  1 
did  not  know  before  that  he  was^  a  prophel  ! 

I  shall  now  notice  the  gentleman's  argument  on  Ro. 
6,  and  Col.  2:  12.  In-order  to  sustain  the  doctrine  of 
my  friend,  these  passages  should  read  dipped  into  wa- 
ter ;  but  this  is  not  the  language.  But  the  apostle  says 
they  were  "  baptized  into  deatk,'^  and  not  dipped  into 
water.  If  it  was  a  literal  burial,  it  was  a  literal  resur- 
rection. But  it  cannot  be  a  literal  burial,  for  the  resur- 
rection is  by  an  action  oi  faith  and  not  by  an  action  of 
man.  Many  pedobaptists,  it  is  true,  admit  this  passage 
to  be  baptism  by  immersion. 

1  will  now  notice  Matthew  3.     1  am  glad  the  gentle- 


4^  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

man  referred  to  this  passage.  Here  we  are  informed, 
that  they  should  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and 
with  fire.  Some  might  say  they  should  be  baptized  iii 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  Mr.  Campbell  did,  but  there  was  no 
literal  immersion  in  fire.  Where  does  he  find  the 
baptism  of  fire.  Mr.  Campbell  says,  the  baptism  of 
fire  is  hell.  He  therefore,  has  to  go  to  hell  to  make 
out  his  exclusive  immersion  theory.  The  gentlemaii 
cannot  find  a  clear  case  of  immersion  in  the  bible. 

The  Jews  said,  to  John  the  Baptist,  "  Why  baptizeth 
thou  if  thou  be  not  that  prophet."  But  where  did  the 
Jews  learn  that  that  prophet  should  baptize?  Why. 
the  prophet  Isaiah  had  said,  "  he  shall  sprinkle  many 
nations  ;"  and  the  prophet  Ezkiel  said,  "  Then  will  1 
spiinkle  clear  water  upon  you."  Heb.  10:  12.  We 
have  §n  exposition  of  the  language  just  quoted  froiii 
the  prophets.  It  reads  thus  :  "  Let  us  draw  near  witli 
a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance  of  faith,  having  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience  and  our  bodies 
washed  with  pure  water."  Now,  you  can  wash  the 
body,  by  sprinkling,  pouring  or  immersion.  Sprinkling 
water  is  washing  in  a  religious  sense. 

1  have  now  some  counter  arguments  to  offer,  which 
1  will  introduce  by  a  quotation  from  Mat.  3:  7,  11  : 
'•  But  when  he  saw  many  Pharisees  and  Sadducees 
come  to  his  baptism,  he  said  unto  them,  O  generation 
of  vipers,  who  has  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  wratli 
to  come  ?  Bring  forth  therefore  fruits  meet  for  repent- 
ance ;  and  think  not  to  say  within  yourselves,  we  have 
Abraham  for  our  father;  for  1  say  unto  you  that  God 
is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  cliildren  unto  Abra- 
ham. And  now  also  the  axe  is  laid  unto  the  root  of 
the  trees:  therefore  every  tree  which  bringeth  not 
forth  good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the  fir(^ 
I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance  ;  but 
he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes 
1  am  not  able  to  bear  :  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holv  Ghost  and  with  fire."      The  Savior  also  com- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  45 

manded  them  to  tarry  in  Jerusalem  till  they  shouldbe 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Mr.  Campbell  renders' 
this  passage,  "  He  shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Spirit." 
Was  the  baptism  of  fire  by  immersion?  I  quote  Acts 
2:  1,7,  which  I  think  will  throw  some  light  on  the  sub- 
ject :  "  And  when  the  day  of  pentecost  was  fully  come, 
they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.  And  sud- 
denly there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  a  rushing 
of  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they 
wire  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them. 
And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  be- 
gan to  speak  with  other  tongues,  as  the  spirit  gave 
them  utterance.  And  there  were  dwelling  at  Jerusa- 
•em  Jews,  devout  men,  out  of  every  nation  under  hea- 
ven. Now  when  this  was  noised  abroad  the  multitude 
same  together,  and  were  confounded,  because  they 
heard  them  speak  every  man  in  his  own  language. — 
And  they  w^ere  all  amazed,  and  marveled,  saying  one 
to  another,  Behold  are  not  all  these  which  speak  Gali- 
leeans  ?  And  how  hear  we  every  man  in  our  own 
tongue,  wherein  were  born." 

This  extraordinary  event  brought  great  multitudes 
ot  the  people  together  to  hear  the  apostles  preach. — 
This  was  that  which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel, 
'^and  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  says  God, 
that  I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  upon  all  flesh."  Here  is 
a  case  in  which  baptism  was  performed  by  pouring. — 
In  this  case  it  was  administered  by  the  Almighty  him- 
self, and  he  certainly  did  it  in  the  right  way.  God 
himself  certainly  could  understand  Greek,  and  knew 
what  he  meant  by  the  word  baptize,  and  in  fulfilling 
his  promise,  that  he  would  baptize  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  shed  forth  this  which  they  saw  and  heard — 
poured  out  the  Spirit  upon  them.  God's  way  of  ad- 
ministering baptism  was  by  pouiing,  but  the  gentle- 
man's way  is  by  dipping.  Here  1  plant  my  stake.^ 
down,  and  from  here  I  shall  not  be  moved.     I  call  the 


4^  "DEBATE  ON  "BAPTISM 

gentleman's  special  attention  to  this  argument  drawn 
from  God's  Holy  book.  Will  he  say  they  were  dipped  -* 
If  he  does,  I  wish  him  to  remember  that  Peter  said,  at 
the  House  of  Cornelius,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them 
as  on  us  at  the  beginning.  God  poured  it  out,  shed  if. 
forth,  and  it  fell  on  them.  This  was  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  there  was  no  dipping  or  immersion 
in  the  case.  This  perfectly  accords  with  Titus  3:5: 
"  He  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Mr.  Campbell  says  the 
baptism  of  fire  is  plunging  into  hell,  and  if  the  termin- 
ation zo  brings  them  out  again,  as  he  says,  they  will 
be  plunged  into  hell  and  brought  out  again.  Immer- 
sion must  be  substantiated,  if  he  has  to  go  to  hell  for 
the  proof  of  it.  "I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water,  but 
he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with 
fire."  Mr.  Campbell  sends  them  to  liell  to  get  their 
baptism,  and  if  they  have  to  goto  hell  to  get  their 
baptism,  it  will  do  them  no  good.  The  legs  of  the  lame 
are  not  equal.  I  suppose  Mr.  Campbell  would  say 
that  haptizo  takes  them  into  hell  and  zo  brings  them 
out.  Here  I  take  my  stand.  From  this  stand  I  cannot 
be  moved.  The  gentleman  may  bring  all  his  strong 
forces,  but  he  never  can  get  over  this. 

Here  we  have  a  definition  of  the  Greek  word  hapti- 
to  from  God  himself,  and,  as  I  said  before,  he  under- 
gtands  Greek.  He  never  can  get  over  this.  If  I  could 
even  believe  that  baptize  is  a  specific  action,  I  would 
not  immerse,  because  the  Lord  has  defined  it  to  mean 
fow,  which  is  also  a  specific  action. 

Now,  the  gentleman  claims  to  be  a  New  Testament 
man.  Let  him  then,  come  up  to  the  work  and  meet 
me  like  a  man.  Let  him  leave  the  classics  and  come  to 
his  bible,  or  his  friends  will  suppose  him  afraid  of  his 
bible,  after  all  the  flourishes  he  has  made  over  it.  1 
defend  my  cause  by  the  word  of  God,  and  need  no  oth- 
er authority.  The  gentleman  quotes  many  others.  ) 
mippose  he  needs  them,  but  I  do  not  need  them,  and 


AND  THB  HOLY  SPIHTT.  47 

simply  quote  then?,  to   meet  Greek  with   Greek  and 
classics  with  classics. 

You  can  see  now,  Christian  friends,  what  his  loud 
claims  stand  upon.  He  depends  upon  Greek  classics, 
and  various  uninspired  authors,  and  nst  on  scripture. 
But  I  appeal  directly  to  the  word  of  God,  and  establish 
my  position  by  the  most  clear  language  of  scripture. 

I  will  now  proceed  directly  to  another  passage  of 
the  word  of  God.  It  reads  thus:  "And  as  he  spake, 
a  certain  Pharisee  besought  him  to  dine  with  him  :  and 
he  went  in  and  sat  down  to  meat.  And  when  the 
Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marveled  that  he  had  not  first 
washed  before  dinner."  Luke  11:  37,38.  I  will  als€ 
read  you  a  passage  from  Mark  7.-  1,5:  "  Then  came 
together  unto  him  the  Pharisees  and  certain  of  the 
Scribes,  which  came  from  Jerusalem.  And  when 
they  saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat  bread  with  defiled, 
that  is  to  say,  unwashed  hands,  they  found  fault.  For 
the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their 
hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  traditions  of  the  elders. 
And  when  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they 
wash,  they  eat  not.  And  m.any  other  things  there  be 
which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  washing  of 
^cups  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of  tables." 

In  the  4th  verse  where  it  is  said,  "when  they  come 
^rom  market,  except  they  wash,  they  eat  not,"  the 
•Greek  is  baptize.  The  gentleman  would  hardly  say 
the  cups,  pots  aiid  tables  were  immersed  ;  yet  it  is 
baptize  in  Greek.  Certainly  they  did  not  dip  their  ta- 
bles. Here  baptize  is  properly  translated  wash,  and 
the  circumstances  show  that  it  would  not  have  done  to 
translate  it  immerse,  I  want  the  gentleman's  atten- 
tion to  this  argument.  Will  he  tell  us  whether  he  be- 
lieves the  cups,  pots,  vessels  and  tables  v\^ere  immersed? 
He  never  can  get  over  this.  No,  my  Christian  breth- 
^rcn,  he  m*ust  fail  here,  as  he  has  already  done  on 
-every  point  we  have  had  before  the  audience. 

J  now  com„e  to  another  argument,  founded  upon  th© 


48  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

baptism  of  the  Jsraelits,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea. — 
Paul  speaks  of  it  thus  :  "  Moreover  brethren,  I  would 
not  that  you  should  be  ignorant,  how  that  all  of  our 
fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea ;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses, 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  1  Cor.  10:  1,  2. 

Here  was  a  baptism,  but  no  immersion,  for  the 
scripture  says  they  passed  through  the  sea  dri/  shod. — • 
I  know  that  some  men  try  to  make  it  immersion,  but  if 
it  was,  it  must  have  been  an  immersion  on  dry  ground. 
There  could  have  been  no  other  kind.  This  passage 
has  always  stood  in  the  way  of  immersionists,  and  th^ 
gentleman  will  find  it  in  his  way  on  this  occasion. 

I  see  that  my  time  is  pretty  near  out,  and  I  want  to 
hear  what  my  friend  can  say  to  these  arguments,  and 
therefore  shall  take  my  seat. 

[mr.  pr[tchard's  fourth  address.] 
Gentlemen  Moderators; 

Mr.  Terrell  has  told  you  that  he  had  known  for  some 
time  that  I  was  a  man  of  grea.tsa£racity,  but  he  had  not 
learned  that  I  was  a  prophet.  Well,  1  do  not  profess 
to  be  either  a  prophet  or  the  son  of  a  prophet.  A  man 
who  is  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  past  can  teU 
something  of  the  future  without  being  a  prophet. — ■ 
When  I  told  you  that  he  would  make  baptizo  mean  any 
thing  and  every  thing  or  nothing,  to  suit  the  convenien- 
ces of  his  party;  was  I  not  right?  When  I  told  you 
that  he  would  affirm  nothing  and  deny  all  in  this  dis- 
cussion; was  I  not  right?  When  I  told  you  that  he 
would  not  try  to  prove  that  Eusebius  used  the  word 
baptism  ot  suffering;  was  I  not  right?  When  I  told 
you  that  he  would  not  meet  me  upon  the  true  issue,  but 
would  take  a  wild  goose  chase  all  over  creation  in 
search  of  materials  to  fill  up  his  time;  was  I  not  right? 
If  the  exact  fulfilment  of  a  number  of  predictions  he 
any  proof  to  him,  that  a  man  is  a  prophet,  I  do  not 
know  but  that  I  shall  convince  him  that  I  am  something 


•iND  THE  UOLY  SPIRIT.  49 

«f  a  prophet  as  well  as  a  man  of  great  sagacity.  I  hope 
iie  did  not  use  the  word  sagacity  in  its  original  signifi- 
cation. The  word  sagacity  comes  from  the  word  sag, 
which  signities  a  dug.  I  hope  he  did  not  mean  that  I 
am  a  man  of  great  do^i<hn.ess. 

Mr.  Terrell  now  tells  you  that  he  might  have  been 
n>istaken,  in  regard  to  the  Apostles  speaking  classic 
Greek,  and  asks,  what  Mr.  Rice  has  to  do  with  this  dis- 
cussion? Sure  enough;  what  has  he  to  do?  Why  did 
Mr.  Terrell  introdace  him  in  this  discussion,  by  telling 
of  his  mighty  work?  He  has  certainly  forgotten  that 
Mr.  Rice's  name  filled  an  important  place,  in  his  speech- 
es. By  repeating  his  name  so  often,  Mr.  Terrell  re- 
minded me  of  an  editor  in  Ohio,  who  had  nothing  on 
hand  to  fill  up  his  paper;  so  he  said,  "1  cannot  think  of 
any  thing  to  put  in  this  place  just  now;"  and  these 
words  just  filled  it  up. 

Mr.  Terrell,  instead  of  telling  you  how  he  and  his 
party  are  bitri"d  in  s  rbikling,  tells  you  that  Rom.  vi:  4, 
reads,  we  are  baptized  into  death.,  not  dipped  in  water . 
.This  was  a  wonderful  discovery.  Wonder  if  it  was  o- 
riginal!  It  must  be,  for  there  are  but  very  few  great 
men  on  the  earth  who  could  conceive  a  thing  so  splen- 
did! It  matters  not  so  far  as  my  argument  is  concern- 
ed, whether  we  are  baptized  into  death.,  mud  or  77iilk;  for 
if  we  are  buried  when  we  are  baptized  into  death,  of 
course  we  must  be  when  we  are  baptized  in  water.— 
Mr.  Terrell-  has  certainly  forgotten  that  it  is  the 
meaning  of  baptizo,  and  not  water ^  we  are  looking  after 
to  day.  The  Spirit  of  God  says,  '-we  are  buried  in  bap- 
tism," and  no  man  living  op  dead  can  make  that  name 
buried  in  sprinkling. 

But  he  says,  we  cannot  be  buried  in  a  literal  sens«, 
for  the  Apostle  says,  we  are  raised  by  failh.  The  Apos- 
tle says  no  such  thing.  His  language  is;  "wherein  al- 
so ye  are  risen  v/ith  him  through  the  fa  t)  of  the  opera- 
tion of  God  ;"  which  means  no  more  than  that  we  aie 
introduced  into  a  new  life,  after  baptism,  through  faith 
D 


50  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

in  Christ.  Mr.  Terrell  has  been  so  long  in  the  practice 
of  baptizing  people  without  faith,  that  he  seems  to  be 
incapable  of  understanding  the  Apostles,  when  they 
connect  faith  and  baptism  together.  When  we  are 
baptized  in  water,  into  the  death  of  Christ,  it  is  always 
through  faith  in  the  Redeemer  that  we  are  raised  to  a 
new  life.  He  says,  I  cannot  find  a  clear  case  of  im- 
mersion in  the  bible.  Let  him  make  some  effort  to 
dispose  of  the  language  of  the  Spirit  w^hich  says,  we 
are  buried  in  baptism,  before  he  favors  us  with  any 
more  assertions  of  the  kind.  We  greatly  prefer  mod- 
estly in  assertion,  and  strength  in  argument,  to  seeing  a 
man  trample  under  his  feet  the  language  of  the  Spirit. 

Mr.  Terrell  quotes  the  words  of  the  Prophet,  "  then 
will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,"  as  if  that  pass- 
age had  any  thing  to  do  with  baptism,  more  than  it 
ha.s  with  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  feet  washing.  His  ob- 
ject doubtless  was,  to  have  me  spend  my  time  in  talk- 
ing about  such  little  things,  but  I  am  not  disposed  to 
gratify  him,  for  if  he  does  not  know  that  it  has  nothing 
to  do  with  this  discussion,  he  is  more  stupid  than  I 
think  he  is 

But  he  told  you,  that  sprinkling  a  little  water  on  the 
face  was  washing  the  body.  This  is  so  ludicrous  of  it- 
sell,  that  it  needs  no  reply.  If /«5  Methodism  be  true, 
Paul  ought  to  have  said,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled 
from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  faces^  sprinkled  with 
a  little  water.  How  can  any  subject  under  all  these 
heavens  be  made  plainer  than  the  Apostles  have  made 
this,  by  first  telling  us,  that  we  are  buried  in  baptism, 
and  then,  that  when  we  were  baptized  "our  bodies 
were  washed  in  pure  water."  I  apprehend  that  the 
gentleman  and  his  party  will  be  as  sick  of  the  bible  as 
they  were  of  the  classics,  before  this  discussion  shall 
end. 

But  to  prove'that  "buried  in  baptism,"  means  sprin- 
kled, or  poured,  or  washed,  or  something  else,  the  gen- 
tleman has  in  great  haste  loft  every  passage  in  th» 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  51 

Xew  Testament  where  the  word  baptize  is  found,  and 
made  his  appeal  to  the  second  of  Acts,  and  to  the  out- 
pouring of  the  Spirit,  as  if  that  out-pouring  was  ex^ 
pressed  by  the  word  about  which  we  are  debating.  To 
appeal  to  things  to  find  the  meaning  of  words,  is,  in 
the  language  of  Ernesti,  most  "  egregious  trifling.'' — 
Our  knowledge  of  things  depends  upon  the  meaning 
of  words,  and  not  the  meaning  of  words  upon  our 
knowledge  of  things.  It  is  then,  "  deceptive,  fallaci- 
ous, and  most  egregious  trifling,  to  appeal  to  things  to 
find  the  meaning  of  words." 

Ernesti  says  :  "  Language  can  be  properhj  interpre- 
ted o'lly  in  a  philological  way.  Not  much  unlike  thesc^ 
fanatics,  and  not  less  hurtful,  are  those  who,  from  a 
similar  contempt  of  the  language  and  from  that  ignor- 
ance of  them  which  breed.^  contempt,  depend  in  their  in- 
terpretations rather  on  things  than  on  words.  Nor  will 
this  mode  of  exegesis  at  all  avail  to  con\mce  gains ny 
ers,  for  they  themselves  boast  of  interpreting  in  like 
manner  hy  things/'*  p.  27. 

Universalists  sustain  their  dogma  of  universal  salva- 
tion, by  precisely  the  same  kind  of  argumentation. — 
In  a  discussion  I  had  with  Mr.  Manford,  about  one  year 
ago,  I  had  to  meet  the  same  arguments  from  him  that 
I  have  from  Mr.  Terrell  to-day.  I  affirmed  that  aion 
means  absolute  duration  without  end,  and  I  proved  il 
by  the  classics.  Mr.  Manford  replied,  that  the  classi- 
cal meaning  of  the  word,  had  nothing  to  do  with  its- 
New  Testament  meaning ;  for,  said  he,  the  Apostles 
did  not  speak  classic  Greek.  If  the  word  does  mean 
duration  without  end  in  the  classics,  it  can  only  mean 
a  limited  time  in  the  New  Testament.  This  is  precise- 
ly the  same  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Terrell.  If,  says 
he,  with  Mr.  Manford,  baptizo  does  mean  to  immersr 
in  the  classics,  it  can  mean  nothing  more  than  sprin- 
kle, or  wet,  OT' wash,  in  the  New  Testament ;  for  thr 
Apostles  did  not  speak  classic  Greek.  How  admirably 
f  these  two  yoke-fellows  pull  together. 


52  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Mr.  Manford,  to  sustain  himself  in  his  assumption, 
appealed  to  things  not  connected  with  the  word  in  de- 
bate, as  Mr.  Terrell  has  done.  God  is  too  merciful 
and  good  to  punish  his  creatures  forever  and  ever. — 
God  poured  out  the  Spirit,  says  Mr.  Terrell,  therefore, 
buried  in  baptism  can  mean  nothing  more  than  buried 
in  sprinkling,  in  weting,  or  bedewing.  I  hazard  nothing 
in  saying,  that  the  most  scandalous  and  ridiculous  no- 
tions, the  most  shameful  perversions  of  the  word  of 
God,  and  all  the  sentiment^  of  infidels  and  sophists 
can  be  sustained,  and  are  sustained,  and  kept  up  by 
the  use  of  the  same  means.  Universalists  have  sus- 
tained their  miserable  per-Mlnd  theology,  and  gained 
over  to  it  many  honest  well-meaning  persons,  by  an 
argumeiitem  ad  homenem  built  upon  a  supposed  charac- 
ter of  God,  which  they  have  created  in  their  own  minds 
by  the  assistance  of  a  distempered  imagination.  So 
Methodists  have  sustained  their  rantism  by  telling  us 
that  there  is  not  water  enough  in  some  countries  to  im- 
merse— that  Jordan  is  nothing  but  a  "  little  loet  water 
stream" — that  in  some  parts  of  the  world  it  is  too  cold 
to  immerse — that  it  is  iv.decent  and  immodest  to  im- 
merse a  female — and  finally  that  the  Lord  poured  out 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  therefore  sprinkling  is  baptism  : 
as  if  any  or  all  of  these  things,  had  any  thing  to  do 
with  the  meaning  of  baptizo. 

His  argument  is  this :  The  Apostles  were  to  be 
baptised  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  the  Holy  Spirit  w^as 
poured  out  from  heaven.  Therefore,  pouring  out,  and 
baptism  are  one  and  the  same  thing. 

I  must  be  permitted  to  make  a  few  arguments  of  the 
sama  kind  for  the  edification  of  the  audience,  and  the 
gratification  of  Mr.  Terrell. 

1.  The  Spirit  was  to  convince  the  world  of  sin.  But 
the  Spirit  was  poured  out  from  heaven.  Therefore. 
pouring  out,  and  convincing  of  sin  are  one  and  the 
same  thing. 

2.  The  H  oly  Spirit  was  to  bring  to  the  remembranct^ 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  53 

of  the  Apostles  all  things  that  Christ  had  said  unto 
them.  But  the  Spirit  was  poured  out.  Therefore, 
bringing  to  remembrance,  and  pouring  out  are  the 
same. 

3.  A  penitent  believer  is  to  be  immersed  in  the 
creek.  But  the  water  in  the  creek  was  poured  out 
from  the  clouds.  Therefore,  pouring  out  from  the 
clouds,  and  immersion  in  the  creek  are  one  and  the 
same  thing. 

Now,  I  ask,  what  has  the  pouring  of  the  Spirit  from 
heaven  to  do  with  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  more  than 
the  pouring  of  the  water  from  the  clouds  has  to  do  with 
an  immersion  in  water,  after  it  came  from  the  clouds? 
If  you  were  to  see  a  man,  who,  when  he  was  informed 
that  a  person  was  immersed  in  the  creek,  would  try  to 
find  the  meaning  of  the  word  immerse,  by  finding  hoiu 
the  water  got  into  the  creek,  you  would  think  him  a  sim- 
pleton. Equally  as  profoundly  learned  and  logical  is 
that  man,  who,  when  he  is  informed  that  the  Apostles 
were  baptized  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  tries  to  find  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptize,  by  iinding  how  the  Spirit  came 
from  heaven. 

By  the  way,  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Terrell,  how  he 
knows  that  the  Spirit  was  poured?  The  classical 
meaning  of  the  word  translated  pour  is  undoubtedly  to 
pour;  but  words  in  the  New  Testament  he  says,  do 
not  mean  what  they  do  in  the  classics.  If  he  should 
answer  that  this  word  (ekkeo)  has  not  changed  its 
meaning,  I  will  be  pleased  to  know  by  what  law  of 
philology  he  causes  one  word  which  expresses  outward 
physical  action  to  change  its  meaning,  and  not  another 
of  the  same  class.  If  the  Greek  word  for  immerse  in 
the  classics  means  pour  in  the  New  Testament,  why 
may  not  the  classic  word  for  pour,  mean  immerse  in 
the  Testament  ?  I  fear  his  argument  will  kill  his  proof. 
As  Mr.  Terrell  has  already  distinguished  himself  in  this 
discussion  for  learning  and  sagacity,  I  hope  he  will 
give  a  good  reason  why  one  of  these  words  has  changed 
its  meaning  and  not  the  other. 


64  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Having  examined  the  logic  of  Mr.  Terrell,  and 
proved  that  his  course  is  contrary  to  reason,  to  com- 
mon sense,  and  to  all  the  established  rules  of  interpre- 
tation. I  will  proceed  to  examine  the  passage  upon 
which  he  relies  to  prove,  that  buried  in  baptism  means 
to  have  a  little  water  sprinkled  on  the  face. 

When  Pentecost  had  come,  it  is  said,  that,  "  sudden- 
i}^  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  of 
mighty  wind,  and  it  fiUed  all  the  house  where  they 
were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
wngues  like  as  of  fire,  and  rr  sat  upon  each  of  them.'' 

Now,  here  it  is  said,  that  the  Spirit  came  from  hea- 
ven, as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the 
house  where  they  were  sitting.  If  all  the  house  was 
Jllled  by  the  Spirit,  of  course  they  were  immersed  in  it. 
But  Mr.  Terrell  will  tell  you  that  it  was  the  sou/id  that 
Jilled  the  house.  Was  it  the  sound  that  mt  upon  them? 
It  is  said  that,  it  filled  the  house,  and  it  sat  upon  them? 
If  sound  is  the  antecedent  of  the  it  of  the  second  verse, 
what  is  the  antecedent  of  the  it  that  sat  upon  them? 
It  cannot  be  tongues,  for  tongues  are  in  the  plural  num- 
ber. W^e  can  probably  find  the  antecedent  of  'it,  by 
ihe  language  of  the  thirty-third  verse,  which  reads: 

"  Therefore,  being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted, 
and  having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  he  hath  shed  forth  this,  which  you  now 
see  and  hear^ 

When  did  they  see  the  Spirit?  When  it  sat  upon 
them.  When  did  they  hear  the  Spirit  ?  W^hen  it  came 
from  heaven,  as  a  rushing  mighty  wdnd.  It  was  the 
Spirit  which  came  from  heaven  ;  it  made  the  sound,  it 
filled  the  house,  it  sat  upon  them,  it  they  saa-,  and  it 
they  heard.  What  can  be  plainer?  There  is  no  sense 
in  saying  the  sound  filled  all  the  house,  when  it  is 
known  that  it  filled  not  only  that  house  where  they 
were  sitting,  but  every  other  house  in  Jerusalem. 

Having  finished  his  argument  to  prove  that  pabtize 
means  to  pour,  Mr.  Terrell  proceeds  immediately  to 
prove  that  it  means  to  wash.     But  if  it  means  to  pour, 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  55 

il  does  not  mean  to  wash.  Certainly  he  will  not  say, 
that  pouring  and  washing  are  one  and  the  same  thing. 
is  there  an  old  lady  in  this  county,  who  does  not  know 
that  there  is  a  vast  deal  of  difference  between  pouring 
out  clothes,  and  washing  clothes  ? 

His  first  proof  for  washing  was,  Mark,  seventh, 
chap.:  '•  And  when  they  came  from  the  market,  except 
they  wash  (Gr.  baptize)  they  eat  not." 

A  Methodist  Commentary  which  1  have  in  my  pos- 
session says,  that  the  word  baptize  in  this  passage 
should  be  translated  hathe^  or  that,  that  is  the  meaning 
oi  the  word,  and  refers  to  Lev.  15:  11,  to  prove  it. 

(Here  Mr.  Terrell  said — Read  it  .sir.) 

Mr.  Pritchard.  I  will  with  the  greatest  pleasure. — 
Benson,  in  his  Commentary  which  I  have  in  my  hand 
says :  '•  And  when  they  came  from  the  market,  excepi 
they  wash, — Greek  baptize — hathe  themselves,  as  the 
word  probably  ought  here  to  be  rendered  (see  Lev.  15: 
II,)  they  eat  not."  Lev.  15:  11,  to  which  he  refers,  re- 
quired a  Jew,  after  he  had  touched  a  person  who  was 
unclean,  as  he  always  did  at  market,  to  go  and  wash 
his  clothes,  and  lathe  his  whole  body  in  water.  A  Jew 
bathed  his  body,  by  going  under  water,  head  and  ears. 
This  the  New  Testament  calls  baptizing.  What  can 
baptism  be  but  immersion  ? 

Mr.  Terrell  seems  to  think  that  I  will  hardly  say,  that 
the  cw/;.«,  and  pots,  and  other  ves.sels  were  immensed. 
Yes  I  will,  and  prove  it  too.  If  he  will  take  up  his  bi- 
ble and  turn  to  Lev.  xi  32,  he  can  see  that  they  were 
taken  to  where  there  was  plenty  of  water,  and  put  in- 
to-^ and  under  the  water,  and  remained  immersed  under 
watt^r  till  evening,  that  they  might  be  cleansed.  This 
the  New  Testament  calls  baptizing  them.  What  can 
be  stronger  in  favor  of  immersion? 

My  Jift/i,  and  la.st  n^irrcnt  upon  this  propro- 
sition,  shall  be  drawn  from  the  well  known  fact,  that 
^immersion,  and  immersion  only  was  practised  by  all 
Christians,  east  and  west,  for  thirteen  hundred  years  af- 


5(>  DEBATE  OS  BAPriBM 

ter  Christ ;  except  in  a  few  cases  where  the  Pope,  or 
some  of  his  tribe,  allowed  pouring  in  danger  of  death, 
where  immersion  could  not  be  had.  I  will  sustain 
this  argument  by  the  testimony  of  some  of  the  most  em- 
inent men  that  ever  lived.  The  Edinburgh  Ency.  de- 
serves to  be  heard  first.     It  says  : 

"In  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  the  form  of  baptism, 
was  very  simple.  The  person  to  be  baptized  was  dip- 
ped into  a  river  or  vessel,  with  the  words  which  Christ 
had  ordered,  and  to  express  more  fully  his  change  of 
character,  generally  assumed  a  new  name.  The  im- 
mersion of  the  whole  body  was  omitted  only  m  the  case 
of  the  sick,  who  could  not  leave  the  beds.  In  this  case 
sprinkling  was  substituted,  which  was  called  clinic 
baptism.  The  Greek  church,  as  well  as  the  Schisma- 
tics in  the  East,  retained  the  custom  o{  immcrsiny  the 
whole  body  ;  but  the  Western  (Roman  Catholic)  church 
adopted,  in  the  thirteenth  century,  the  mode  of  baptism 
by  sprinkling,  has  has  been  continued  by  the  protes- 
tants,  baptists  only  excepted."     Art.    Baptism. 

Bassuet :  "  The  baptism  of  .Tohn  the  Baptist,  which 
.served  as  a  preparative  to  that  of  Jesus  Christ,  was 
performed  by  phinsiing.  In  fine,  we  read  not  in  the 
Scripture  that  baptism  was  otherwise  administered  ; 
and  we  are  abk  to  make  it  appear,  by  the  acts  of  coun- 
cils, and  by  the  ancient  rituals,  that  for  thir/ee7i  hundj-ed 
years,  baptism  was  thus  administered  throughout  the 
yjhoJe  church,  as  far  as  was  possible." 

Dr.  Whitby  :  "  It  being  so  expressly  declared  here, 
that  we  are  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,  by  being 
hurifd  under  w^ater,  and  the  argument  to  oblige  us  to  a 
conformity  to  his  death,  by  dying  to  sin,  being  taken 
hence;  and  this  immersion  being  religiously  observed 
by  all  Christians  for  thirteen  centnrhs  ;  and  tlie  change 
of  it  into  sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance  from 
the  Author  of  this  institution,  or  any  license  from  any 
council  of  the  church,  being  that  which  the  Romanist 
still  urgeth  to  justify  his  refusal  of  the  cup  to  the  la- 
ity." Note  on  Rom.  64. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  57 

Wilier,  in  his  Lectures  on  Archaeology,  saj-s,  "  Af- 
fusion was  at  first  applied  only  to  the  5zc/i:,"  (are  Meth- 
odists all  sick?)  "but  was  gradually  introduced  for  oth- 
ers after  the  seventh  century,  and  in  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury became  the  prevailing  practice  in  the  West.  But 
the  Eastern  church  has  retained  immersion  alone  as 
valid." 

Van  Caellu  :  "  Immersion  in  water  was  general  until 
the  thirteenth  century  ;  but  among  the  Latins  it  was  dis- 
placed by  sprinkling  ;  but  retained  by  the  Greeks." 

Professor  Stuart :  "  We  have  collected  facts  enough 
to  authorize  us  now  to  come  to  the  following  general 
conclusions  respecting  the  practice  of  the  Christian 
church  in  general,  with  regard  to  the  mode  of  baptism, 
viz  :  that  from  the  earliest  ages  of  which  w^e  have  any 
account,  subsequent  to  the  apostolic  age,  and  down- 
ward for  several  centuries,  the  churches  did  generally 
practice  baptism  by  immersion  ;  perhaps  by  immersion 
of  the  whole  person  ;  and  that  the  only  exceptions  to 
this  rnode  which  were  usually  allowed,  were,  in  cases 
of  urgent  sickness,  where  immersion  could  not  be  prac- 
ticed. It  may  also  be  mentioned  here  that  aspersion 
and  affusion,  which  had  in  particular  cases  been  now 
and  then  practiced  in  primitive  times,  were  generally 
introduced,  and  became  at  length  quite  common,  and 
in  the  Western  church,  almost  ijniversal,  before  the 
Reformation." 

(Time  expired.) 

[mr.  Terrell's  FOurxTH  reply.] 
Gentlemen  Moderators — Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

1  am  not  surprised  at  the  earnestness  and  zeal  mani- 
fested by  my  friend,  Mr.  Pritchard,  on  the  present  occa- 
sion. The  manifest  failure  he  has  made,  and  the  circum- 
stances which  surround  him,  are  sufficient  to  create  some 
warmth  within  him.  He  has  considered  himself  the 
champion  of  immersion,  and  the  open  opponent  of  all 
the  sprinklers  in  the  land,  and  now  having  made  such 


58  *  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

an  evident  failure,  it  is  quite  sufficient  to  rouse  up  hb 
zeal. 

One  thing  I  look  upon  as  exceedingly  unbecoming  on 
an  occasion  like  this,  and  not  only  so,  but  contrary  to 
our  rules  of  discussion.  What  1  allude  to  is  the  fact, 
that  he  has  charged  me  with  attempting  to  deceive.  1 
cannot  look  upon  this  in  any  other  light,  but  as  ungen- 
tlemanly  and  unchristian;  as  also  conflicting  with  our 
stipulated  rules  of  debate.  I  have  tried  to  spare  his 
feelings  and  the  feelings  of  his  friends,  and  hope  to  con- 
tinue so.  My  Christian  friends,  let  us  try  to  manifest  at 
least  a  kind  spirit. 

In  regard  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  I  would 
ask  this  intelHgent  audience,  what  has  my  friend,  Mr. 
Pritchard,  said?  He  has  informed  us  very  kindly  and 
confidentially  that  Jesus  says,  "they  shall  be  immersed 
in  the  Holy  Spirit."  This  is  exactly  what  this  audience 
came  here  to  hear  him  prove  on  this  occasion.  He  has 
begged  the  whole  question  in  controversy,  and  assumed 
ibr  gianted  the  ver^  point  in  dispute.  Wewant  to  hear 
liim  prove  that  Jesus  ever  taught  i?nmersion  in  the  H0I3' 
Ghost.  But  1  shall  now  leave  his  begging  of  the  ques- 
tion,and  call  your  attention  to  the  very  language  of  the 
sacred  scripture. 

"And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they 
were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.  And  suddenly 
there  came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  migh- 
ty wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sit- 
ting. And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues, 
like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them;  and  they 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues,  as  the  spirit  gave  them  utterance." 
Acts  2:  1,4. 

This  passage  says,  "And  it  filled  all  the  house  where 
they  were  sitting."  I  would  ask  what  filled  the  house? 
The  passage  says,  "and  there  came  a.  sound  from  hea- 
ven as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the 
house  where  they  were  sitting."      Is  it  not  clear  that 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  59 

**i/,"  the  sound,  filled  the  house?  I  maintahi  that  the 
word  ".sow 716^"  is  the  antecedent  to  the  word  '-it."  But, 
my  friend,  Mr.  Pritchard,  wants  to  know  what  is  the  an- 
tecedent to  the  word  "z7  in  the  third  verse.  I  answer 
that  "to/zowe"  is  the  antecedent  to  the  word  '"zif."  Not 
tongues,  as  the  gentleman  had  it,  but  tongue.  I  argue 
that  it  was  the  sound  that  filled  the  house;  and  certain- 
ly they  were  not  immersed  in  sound!  This  would  be 
ridiculous.  How  would  you  go  about  it,  to  immerse  in 
sound — for  instance,  how  would  you  immerse  in  a  clap 
of  thunder?  This  would  be  a  difficult  task  for  immer- 
sionists  to  perform! 

How  could  any  one  be  immersed  by  pouring?  The 
gentleman  did  not  tell  us;  but  in  the  place  of  doing  so 
got  on  to  the  word  "/Y,"  and  we  had  then  nothing  but 
it,  it,  IT.  IT. 

I  showed  in  my  last  speech,  that  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  performed  by  pt.urlnj,;.  The  prophet 
said,  ''it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days  says  God, 
that  I  \\\\\  puvj'  out  my  Spirit."  Now  will  the  gentle- 
man be  so  good  as  to  tell  us  how  any  one  could  be  im- 
mersed, hy. pouring?  This,  I  think,  would  be  anew  way 
of  administering  immersion.  He  ma}  charge  me  with 
trying  to  deceive  as  much  as  he  pleases.  But  I  shall 
pay  no  attention  to  it;  but  shall  just  let  it  go  for  what 
it  is  worth.  I  have  just  quoted  the  word  of  God,  and 
it  says,  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  be  poured  out.  This  is  the 
scripture  mode,  and  this  is  what  1  shall  contend  for. — 
The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  then,  was  administered 
by  pouring,  and  the  Savior  does  not  say,  as  he  has 
said,  that  they  shall  be  immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 
There  is  no  such  passage  in  the  bible. 

His  proposition  is  a  universal  proposition.  He  does 
not  simply  undertake  to  prove  that  immersion  is  baptism 
or  that  in  some  cases  they  immersed,  in  the  apostolic 
age;  but  he  contends  that  immersion  was  invariably 
practiced,  and  noihirig  else.  Yes,  he  contends  that  noth- 
ing else  is  baptism.  But  I  have  now  found  an  exception 


60  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

to  liis  universal  proposition,  and  that  in  the  plainest 
and  clearest  language.  The  Lord  himself  said,  when 
speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  "it  shall 
come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  says  God,  that  I  will  pour 
OUT  my  Spirit.  Here  I  have  planted  my  stake,  and  here 
1  expect  to  stand.  The  gentleman  cannot  escape.  He 
can  never  find  any  immersion  in  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  He  may  talk  of  their  being  baptized  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,  but  he  can  find  no  immersion  in  the 
Holy  Ghost.  It  was  not  a  sound  that  was  poured  upon 
them,  but  it  was  the  Holy  Ghost.  There  was  no  im- 
mersion in  the  case. 

I  could  dwell  much  longer  here,  if  I  thought  it  neces- 
sary; but  it  is  certainly  not  necessary.  The  passage  1 
have  now  introduced  is  too  clear  to  be  misunderstood. 
My  christian  friends  I  feel  that  I  occupy  ground  that 
cannot  be  shaken.     My  position  is  impregnable. 

Mr.  Pritchard  wishes  me  to  give  him  a  word  from  the 
Greek  language  that  means  to  immerse  if  bapiho  does 
not  possess  that  meaning.  To  gratify  the  gentleman, 
J  would  say,  then,  that  kataduno  means  immerse  1  sup- 
pose. But  this  word  is  not  used  in  reference  to  bap- 
tism in  the  whole  bible.  I  suppose  this  will  satisfy  the' 
gentleman.  But  baptize,  they  did  not  use  in  the  sense 
of  immerse. 

I  will  proceed  to  give  the  gentleman  some  more  from 
the  good  book,  seeing  that  he  is  a  great  man  for  scrip- 
ture. Heb.  9  10,  we  have  the  word  baptisms  where 
it  cannot  mean  immersions.  "Which  .<-'tood  only  in  meats 
and  drinks  and  divers  washings,  and  cardinal  ordinan- 
ces, imposed  on  them  until  the  time  of  reformation." 
Here  we  hsiY e  washings  from  bapfi^ms,  and  I  defy  him 
to  make  immerse  of  it.  He  cannot  show  that  this  lan- 
guage requires  immersions. 

Heb.  10:  22,  lono  is  translated  wash. 

Heb.  6:  2,  we  find  the  "doctrine  of  haptismt.^^  Mr. 
Campbell  renders  this,  "doctrine  of  immersions."     BiU 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  61 

I  deny  the  correctness  of  this  rendering;  it  was  not  di- 
vers immersions,  but  divers  washings. 

My  argument  on  the  baptism  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea,  remains  untouched  and  unmoved.  J  have  showed 
clearly  that  it  could  not  have  been  an  immersion  in 
that  case.  They  passed  through  the  sea  dry-shod. — 
Could  they  have  been  immersed  and  remain  dry-shod. 
1  think  hardly.  In  this  case  they  were  evidently  sprink- 
led. The  rain  from  the  clouds,  fell  upon  them  and  bap- 
tized them.  I  invite  the  gentleman's  special  attention 
to  this,  and  hope  he  will  tell  us  hov/  they  could  have 
been  immersed,  and  remained  dry-shod.  He  must  re- 
member that  the  water  must  have  come  from  the  cloud 
and  that  it  could  not  have  immersed  them,  for  the  wa- 
ter of  the  sea  was  parted,  that  they  might  pass  through 
dru-shod. 

The  gentleman  tells  you  that  there  is  nothing 
said  in  the  scripture  about  bnngii.g  water  to  baptize. — 
Well,  can  he  refer  to  anyplace  where  it  says  any  thing 
about  going  to  a  river  or  a  pond  to  immerse.  Kot  one 
such  a  place  can  he  find  in  the  whole  bible.  Yet  he 
makes  it  an  argument  against  the  sprinkling  mode,  be- 
cause we  do  not  read  of  any  place,  which  states  in  just 
so  many  words,  that  water  was  brought  to  baptize!— 
But  I  would  inform  the  gentleman,  that  we  have  very 
good  evidence  that  they  did  bring  water  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  Philipian  Jailor  was  baptized  in  the  house, 
and  if  they  did  not  bring  water  to  baptize  him,  they 
baptized  him  with  water  that  had  been  brought  for  some 
other  purpose,  and  consequently  was  there  ready  for 
the  purpose.  The  Jailor  heard  the  word  of  the  Lord 
and  believed  in  the  prison,  and  then  was  brought  out 
into  his  own  house,  and  was  baptized  with  all  his  house. 
This  case  presents  an  unanswerable  argument  against 
immersion,  and  in  favor  of  sprinkling.  As  he  was 
baptized  in  his  house,  he  could  not  have  been  immersed, 
but  must  have  been  sprinkled  or  poured.  How  will 
the  gentleman  get  over  this  case?  He  never  can  get 
over  it,  but  must  make  a  complete  failure. 


6?J  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

The  gentleman  has  followed  in  the  common  train  of 
all  immersionists,  and  in  so  doing,  has  repeated  over 
the  old  assertion,  that  immersion  was  invariably  prac- 
ticed during  many  hundred  years.  But  in  this  he  ha?^ 
overlooked  one  important  consideration.  He  know» 
that  clinic  baptism  was  practiced  during  all  that  time. 
Clinic  baptism  was  the  baptism  of  sick  and  weakly  per- 
sons who  could  not  be  baptized  in  any  other  way  but 
by  sprinkling  or  pouring.  This  shows  that  the  gentle- 
man's exclusive  immersion  was  not  known,  or  believed 
during  this  long  period. 

Let  me  here  briefly  rehearse  the  arguments,  as  they 
have  been  presented.  He  set  out  to  establish  that  bap- 
tize meant  exclusively  to  immerse.  This  he  undertook 
to  do  first  from  the  classics.  But  here  he  made  a  total 
failure.  Among  the  authorities  quoted  to  show  that 
he  is  in  error  here,  was  one  who  speaks  of  baptizing 
with  tears.  This  he  has  not  shown  to  be  immerse  in 
tears  and  he  never  can.  Another  authority  speaks  of 
baptizing  the  blister  plaster.  This  evidently  meant 
wetting  and  not  immersion.  On  this  passage  he  has 
made  a  complete  failure.  When  he  found  that  he  must 
fail  on  the  classics,  he  turned  to  men  of  learning. — 
Here  he  also  failed.  He  then  turned  to  the  bible.  Wr 
here  met  him,  with  bible  authority,  and  showed  that 
pouring  was  the  mode  of  administering  baptism.  1 
examined  the  divers  baptisms,  and  showed  that  it  could 
not  be  divers  immersions,  but  that  it  must  be  diver;^ 
washings.  The  gentleman  told  us  that  we  find  no  ac- 
count of  bringing  water  to  baptize.  In  reply  1  ask  him 
to  show  an  account  where  they  are  said  to  have  gone 
to  a  river  to  baptize  and  produced  the  Jailor  as  an  in 
stance  where  immersion  could  not  have  been  practiced, 
as  it  was  administered  in  the  house. 

I  now  call  the  gentleman's  attention  to  the  baptism 
of  Lydia.  She  was  baptized  on  the  bank  of  a  river 
How  will  the  gentleman  make  immersion  in  this  case'* 
Could  she  have  been  immersed  on  the  river  bank?- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  6.^ 

Surely  not.     The  plain  state  of  the  case  is,  that  she  was 
sprinkled. 

I  will  yet  introduce  one  more  case  as  an  exception  to 
the  gentleman's  exclusive  immersion.  I  allude  to  the 
baptism  of  St.  Paul.  He  was  baptized  standing  up, 
which  is  clearly  proved  by  the  words  of  Annanias, 
'^  Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Here,  my  christian  friends 
is  a  case  that  bids  defiance  to  Mr.  Pritchard.  He  could 
not  have  been  immersed  standing  up.  How  would  he 
immerse  a  man  standing  up.  This  language,  is*  wholly 
unlike  that  of  immersionists.  This,  then  forms  another 
exception  to  the  gentleman's  exclusive  immersion  the- 
ory. And  he  never  can  get  over  it. 
[Time  expired.] 

[mr.  pritciiard's  fifth  address.] 
Gentlemen  Moderators : 

Before  noticing  the  few  things  which  I  have  noted 
in  the  last  speech  of  Mr.  Terrell,  I  will  finish  the  argu- 
ment I  was  upon  when  my  time  expired. 

You  doubtless  observed,  that  the  passage  which  I 
read  from  Professor  Stuart,  stated,  that  sprinkling  was 
"gradually  introduced,  and  became  at  length  quite 
tjommon,  and  in  the  Western  church  almost  universal, 
before  the  Reformation."  The  Edinburgh  Encyclopedia, 
from  which  we  have  already  quoted,  says  :  "  In  this 
country  (Scotland)  however,  sprinkling  was  never  used 
in  ordinary  cases  till  after  the  Reformation."  Article 
Baptism. 

One  says,  it  was  introduced  before,  and  the  other  that 
it  was  nev  r  used  till  aft^r  the  Reformation.  Well,  1 
care  not  which  is  right,  for  they  both  show  that  this 
thing  called  sprinkling  was  introduced  a  thousand  or 
fifteen  hundred  years  too  late,  to  be  a  part  of  Christ- 
ianity. 

We  will  now  hear  the  learned  Basnage,  who,  in 
speaking  of  the  answer  which  Pope  Stephen  gave  the 


64  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

French  clergy,  about  the  lawfulness  of  pouring  water 
on  the  sick,  says:  ''It  allows  sprinkling  only  incase  of 
iminent  danger ;  that  the  authenticity  of  it  is  denied 
by  some  Catholics ;  that  many  laws  were  made  alter 
this  time  in  Germany,  France,  and  England,  to  compel 
dipping,  and  without  any  provision  for  cases  of  neces- 
sity ;  therefore,  that  this  law  did  not  alter  the  mode  of 
dipping  in  public  baptisms ;  and  that  it  was  not  till 
five  hundred  and  fifty-seven  years  after,  that  the  legis- 
latui^y  in  the  Council  of  Revenna,  in  the  year  thirtceH 
hundred  and  eleven,  declared  dipping  or  sprinkling  in- 
different." 

Here  is  the  authority  for  which  Mr.  Terrell  has  been 
looking  all  day;  and  it  is  the  authority  of  a  set  of  poli- 
tical demagogues  who  cared  neither  for  God,  religion. 
nor  the  bible.  We  frequently  hear  Methodists  boast 
that  they  are  more  liberal  than  we  ;  for  it  is  a  matter 
o^  indifference  wdth  them,  whether  a  man  is  sprinkled 
or  immersed.  This  politico  Ecclesiastic  Council  de- 
clared the  same  thing  more  than  five  hundred  years 
ago.  It  is  astonishing  to  see  how  precisely  children 
ape  their  parents,  and  how  apt  they  are  to  regard  the 
language  of  their  mothers,  as  the  purest  in  the  world. 

1  will  conclude  this,  my  fifth  argument,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Dr.  Wall,  the  great  and  distinguished  Pedo- 
baptist  historian  ;  than  whom,  but  few,  ever  possessed 
more  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  Christian  church. 

He  says  :  "  No  branch  of  the  nominally  Christian 
church,  however  corrupt  in  other  respects,  has  dared  to 
change  the  law  of  immersion  into  sprinkling,  except 
the  Roman  hierarchy,  and  those  churches  which  derived 
sprinkling  from  that  jo!  luted  .source.^' 

Again  he  says :  "  This  is  so  plain  and  clear  by  an 
infinite  number  of  passages,"  (that  the  primitive  Christ- 
ians immersed)  "that  as  one  man  cannot  but  piti/  the 
wTak  endeavors  of  such  Pedo-baptists  as  would  main- 
tain the  negative  of  it ;  so  also  we  ought  to  disown  and 
show  a  dislike  of  ihe  profane  scoffs  which  some  people 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIt.  65 

^ive  to  the  English  antipedobaptists,  merely  for  their 
use  of  dipping.  =^  *  *  *  *  It  is  a  great  want  of 
prudence,  as  well  as  Itonesty,  to  refuse  to  grant  to  an  ad- 
versary what  is  certainly  true,  and  may  be  proved  50." 
H.  I.  B.p.  462. 

It  is  true,  he  says,  and  may  be  proved  true,  that  im* 
mersion  was  the  primitive  practice ;  and  it  is  a  great 
want  of  prudence,  as  well  as  of  honesty,  to  rufuse  to 
grant  what  m.a}'  be  proved  by  an  iifiwite  number  of 
passages.  But  I  Avish  you,  my  Christian  friends,  to 
remember,  and  never  let  it  be  forgotten  by  yon,  that 
Dr.  Wall,  the  mighty  champion  of  pedobaptism,  has 
declared  that,  '-No  church,  however  corrupt  in  other 
respects,  has  ever  dared  to  change  the  law  of  immer- 
sion into  sprinkling,  except  the  Roman  hierarchy,  and 
ihose  churches"  (such  as  the  Methodist)  "  which  de- 
rived sprinkling  from  that  polluted  sowce.^^ 

What  can  be  plainer  than,  if  Methodists  derive  their 
sprinkling  from  the  Romish  Church,  the  mother  of  all 
the  modern  sprinkling  parties,  they  did  not  receive  it 
from  the  Lord. 

I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  Hinton,  the  author  of  this  his- 
tory which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  for  the  testimony  of 
most  of  the  persons  from  whom  I  have  read  in  sup- 
port of  this  my  last  argument.  I  come  now  to  the 
last  speech  of  Mr.  Terrell. 

He  commenced  by  telling  you,  that  I  had  charged 
him  with  an  attempt  to  deceive.  It  was  Ernesti,  and 
not  me.  Hear  him  again.  "Any  method  of  interpre- 
tation not  pj/idological  is  fallacious.  Moreover  the 
method  of  gathering  sense  of  words  from  thin;js  is  alto- 
getfier  deceptive  and  fallacious^.  It  was  Ernesti  then, 
and  not  me  who  said,  that  his  method  of  gathering 
the  sense  of  words  from  things  is  deceptive,  fallacious, 
and  most  egregious  trifiihg. 

But  he  w^ants  to  know,  who  ever  saw  an  immersion 
by  pouring?    I  answer,  just  as  many   as  have   seen 
baptism  by  pouring.     But  1  must  ask  another  question. 
E 


6$  •  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Who  ever  saw  a  person  hitried  in  pouring?  or  who  ever 
saw  a  man's  body  washed  in  pure  water,  by  having  a 
few  drops  of  water  sprinkled  upon  his  face  ? 

But  he  wishes  me  to  tell  where  I  find  the  baptism  of 
fire.  He  has  told  us  that  baptizo  means  to  wasli,  to  loet, 
a.nd  to  moisten.  Now,  will  he  have  the  goodness  to 
tell  us  where  on  earth  he  finds  the  Jii^e,  in  which  he 
can  either  icet,  ijioiskn,  or  wash  sl  man.  You  can  nei- 
ther sprinkle,  pour,  moisten,  wet,  or  icash  a  man  in  fire; 
but  you  can  immerse  him.  Mr.  Campbell,  he  says, 
goes  to  hell  for  his  baptism.  I  have  only  time  to  say, 
this  is  not  true.  I  Avill  tell  him  all  about  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire  when  we  come  to  debate 
the  last  proposition,  if  he  dare  introduce  them  where 
they  properly  belong. 

He  says,  it  is  not  tongues,  but  one  tongue,  in  Acts  2:  3^ 
and  that  this  tongue  is  the  antecedent  of  the  it  of  the 
third  verse.  Mr.  Terrell  has  certainly  paid  but  very 
little  attention  to  his  bible.  It  is  tongues,  and  I  again 
ask  how  tongues  can  be  the  antecedent  of  it.  That 
sound,  I  fear,  has  filled  his  eijcs,  as  well  as  his  ears.  It 
w^as  the  Holy  Spirit  which  came  from  heaven,  it  made 
the  sound,  it  filled  the  house,  it  sat  upon  them,  it  they 
saw,  and  it  they  heard.  It  will  be  impos.sible  for  any 
man  now  living  to  make  it  appear  that  it  was  not  the 
Holy  Spirit,  but  mere  sound  wdiich  came  from  heaven, 
and  filled  the  house. 

I  called  upon  Mr.  Terrell  some  time  since  to  produce 
a  word  in  all  the  Greek  language,  which  definitely  ex- 
presses the  action  of  immersion,  if  baptizo  does  not. — 
After  taking  some  time  to  think,  he  says,  "  kataduno  I 
suppose  will  do."  Well,  kaiadvno  I  suppose  will  not 
do.  Du7io,  without  the  kata,  means  to  sink,  and  katfi 
means  down ;  so  the  two  words  when  put  together. 
mean  to  sink  down.  Katahapto  means  to  dip  down,  but 
kataduno  means  to  sink  down.  Katabapto  is  used  to  ex- 
press the  action  of  dipping  down,  or  dipping  deeply;  but 
kataduno  is  applied  to  things  w^hich  sink  of  themselva-, 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  67 

as  the  apparent  sinking  of  the  sun  in  the  ocean.  We 
will  hear  Mr.  Carson  upon  the  difference  between  du- 
noj  or  dunein,  or  baptizo.  '-The  obvious  and  charac- 
teristic distinction,"  says  he,  "  between  the  two  words 
is,  that  dunein  is  a  neuter  verh^^  (a  great  word  this,  to 
definitely  express  the  action  of  immersion)  "signifying 
to  sink^  not  to  cause  something  else  to  sink.  But  a 
thing  that  sinks  of  itself ,  will  doubtless  sink  to  the  bot- 
tom. But  baptism  signifies  merely  to  dip,  without  re- 
spect to  depth  or  consequence." 

Duno  then,  never  can  be  made  to  definitely  express 
the  action  of  immersion  ;  for  it  is  a  neuter  verb,  signi- 
fying to  sink,  not  to  cause  something  else  to  sink. 

What  I  have  now^  said  upon  kataduno,  I  suppose  Mr. 
Terrell  will  let  pass  without  any  notice,  as  he  has 
everything  else  that  I  have  said.  If  I  were  a  man,  1 
would  be  a  man.  When  I  enter  into  a  discussion  with 
a  man,  I  will  reply  to  what  he  says,  or  I  will  give  it  up 
and  go  home.  To  make  out  that  baptizo  means  to 
sprinkle,  pour,  wet,  w^ash,  moisten,  or  something  else, 
he  quotes  the  divers  baptisms,  Heb.  9:  10.  If  he  wall 
make  himself  acquainted  with  the  law  of  Moses,  he 
will  find  that  all  the  Jews  had  to  immerse  themselves, 
their  cups,  pots,  and  everything  that  was  used  by 
them,  every  time  they  became  unclean,  as  the  last  act 
of  their  cleansing.  They  had  divers  immersions;  we 
have  but  one.  A  single  Jew  would,  in  all  probability, 
have  to  immerse  himself,  or  something  that  belonged 
to  him,  more  than  five  hundred  tim.es  during  the  course 
of  his  life;  which  would  certainly  make  "  r/fwr*  bap- 
tism" among  them.  If  his  sprinkling  is  alluded  to  in 
Heb.  9:  10,  it  certainly  must  be  among  the' ^^caiiial 
ordinances,''^  for  it  is  not  among  the  baptisms. 

The  children  oflsreal  w^ere  not  immersed  in  the  cloud . 
and  in  the  sea,  he  says,  for  the  ground  was  perfecth 
dry.  I  have  often  been  made  to  smile  when  I  havt 
heard  Methodists  say,  they  could  not  have  been  im- 
mersed for  the  ground  was  dry,  and  in  less  than  ont 


^8  *  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

minute  turn  to  Psalms  and  read  the  passage,  "The 
i^ky  sent  out  a  sound  and  the  clouds  poured  out  water'- 
to  show  how  they  were  baptized.  In  one  breath  they 
{iay,  the  ground  was  perfectly  dry,  and  in  the  next,  that 
the  clouds  were  pouring  out  uatcr  upon  it.  I  should 
take  it,  that  the  ground  was  very  dnj  while  the  clouds 
were  pouring  out  water  upon  it.  The  fact  is,  there 
was  no  icater  about  their  baptism.  They  were  down 
in  the  sea,  and  the  cloud  came  down  upon  them  and 
covered  them  over ;  and  thus  they  were  "  baptized  in 
the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea,  as  the  Spirit  of  God  says 
they  were.  It  was  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea,  and 
not  by  water  poured  out  of  the  cloud  or  sea  that  they 
were  baptized. 

But  there  is  no  account,  he  says,  in  all  the  New 
Testament,  of  the  Apostles  going  after  water  to  bap- 
tize with.  That  is  very  true,  and  the  reason  of  it  is 
the  Apostles  were  not  Methodists.  U  they  had  been, 
they  would  have  been  telling  us  ail  the  time  about  the 
water  they  sent  for,  or  had  in  the  meeting  house  to 
sprinkle  with.  The  New  Testament  says,  they  went 
to,  and  baptized  in  the  river.     That  will  do  me. 

But  Paul,  he  tells  you,  was  baptized  in  a  house 
standing  up.  It  is  true  that  Paul  stood  up  to  be  bap- 
tized, but  it  is  not  true  that  he  was  baptized  in  the 
house.  We  always  make  the  people  stand  up  to  be 
baptized,  but  Methodists  make  them  kneel  down.  God 
{^ays,  according  to  their  own  showing,  stand  ?//>,  just  as 
we  do ;  but  Methodists,  after  proving  that  the  Lord 
commands  us  to  sto7idup,  say,  come  and  kneel  down. — 
The  Lord  says,  be  baptized,  but  Methodists  say,  be 
sprinkled.  It  seems  to  me  that  they  are  determined 
ro  obey  the  Almighty  in  nothing. 

But  we  are  told  by  some  of  his  party,  that  there  is 
.10  "  locomotive  power  in  the  word  arise,"  and  therefore 
it  did  not  take  him  out  of  the  house.  I  did  not  sup- 
pose that  the  word  arise  took  him  out  of  the  house,  but 
that  it  put  him  on  his  feet  and  he  walked  out.    It  was 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  69 

not  necessary  to  tell  Paul  to  arise  and  go  so  far  East, 
and  so  far  West,  till  he  came  to  water,  and  then  he 
must  go  down  into  the  water  so  deep  to  be  baptized; 
for  Paul  was  not  a  child,  nor  a/oo/;  but  knew  all  things 
that  were  essential  to  baptism  before  his  conversion. 
When  we  talk  to  children  or  block-heads  we  express 
everything,  but  to  talk  to  men  of  sense  in  that  way, 
would  be  to  offer  them  an  insult;  because  things  which 
are  understood  are  seldom  if  ever  expressed.  To 
illustrate  this,  I  will  suppose  Mr.  Terrell  to  be  sleep- 
ing in  an  upper  room  in  some  house  in  this  place,  and 
one  of  you  go  up  in  the  morning  and  say  to  him,  ai'ise 
and  eat  your  breakfast.  Now,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
tell  him  all  he  has  to  do  before  he  can  eat  his  break- 
fast, such  as  get  out  of  bed,  dress  yourself,  come  down 
stairs,  wash  your  face,  comb  your  head,  come  in,  sit 
down  to  the  table,  and  help  yourself  or  be  waited  upoii 
by  some  one  else,  and  be  sure  to  chew  your  meat  and 
bread  before  your  swallow  them.  To  tell  him  all  this, 
would  be  to  insult  him.  But  suppo.^.  he  were  disposed 
to  carry  out  his  beautiful  logic,  and  instead  of  prepar- 
ing for  breakfast  would  say,  the  word  arise  means  to 
get  up  and  stand  right  where  you  are ;  so  he  gets  up 
and  stands  up  in  bed.  You  wait  some  time,  and  final- 
ly go  up  to  see  what  is  confining  him  to  nis  bed,  and  to 
your  utter  astonishment  you  find  him  in  bed,  without 
his  clothes,  standing  straight  up.  You  say  to  him, 
why  don't  you  come  to  breakfast  ?  He  replies,  you 
told  me  to  arise  and  eat,  and  there  is  no  locomotive  pow- 
er in  the  word  arise,  it  means  to  stand  up  v  here  you 
are.  By  thus  carrying  out  his  principles  into  practice, 
ke  would  cause  you  to  think  that  hi.s  Methodism  had 
made  him  mad.  It  was  enough  to  say  to  Paul,  "  arise 
and  be  baptized,"  for  he  understood  all  the  rest.  Paul, 
speaking  of  himself  and  others,  says,  "  ?re  are  buried 
with  Chi-ist  in  baptism."     This  will  do  me. 

But  the  jailer,  he  says,  was  baptized  in  the  jail. — 
How  can  a  man  who  has  read  his  bible,  make  such 


70'  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

an  assertion  ?  Acts  16th  says,  that  the  jailer  "  brought 
them  our  of  the  jail,  that  Paul  preached  in  his  house, 
(not  in  the  jail,)  and  after  he  had  heard  the  word  of 
God,  "  he  took  them"  from  his  house  and  washed  their 
stripes,  and  was  baptized,  he,  and  all  his  straightway. 
And  after  his  baptism, "  he  brought  them  into  his  house" 
again.  They  were  not  in  the  jail  when  they  preached, 
but  in  his  house ;  they  were  not  in  his  house  when 
they  baptized,  but  went  out  to  do  it,  and  after  baptism 
came  back  "  into  his  housed  If  in  a  house  is  the  place 
to  baptize,  why  did  the  Apostle  go  out  at  midnight  to 
baptize  the  jailer? 

I  wonder  if  Mr.  Terrell  cannot  make  it  appear  that 
Philip  baptized  the  Eunuch  in  some  house,  jail,  or  on 
^/r// ground.  If  he  can  prove  that  coming  out  of  the 
Jail  and  going  to  water  to  baptize,  means  to  stay  in 
jail,  why  not  prove  that  going  "  down  into  the  water" 
to  be  baptized,  means  to  be  baptized  on  dry  ground  ? 
He  certainly  can,  if  he  will  try,  make  it  out  that  going 
down  into  the  water  means  nothing  more  than  sprin- 
kled in  some  house,  or  poured  in  some  jail. 

I  must  now,  in  the  remaining  part  of  my  address, 
recapitulate  my  arguments. 

1.  My  first  argument  was,  that  baptize,  in  the  whole 
history  of  the  Greek  language,  has  but  one  meaning. 
It  not  only  means  to  immerse,  but  it  never  has  any 
other  meaning. 

This  argument  was  sustained  by  the  testimony  of 
some  of  the  wisest  and  most  learned  of  the  Greeks, 
and  others  who  wrote  in  the  Greek  language  ;  who 
without  exception  declared  that,  that  only  is  baptized 
which  is  under  water.  Indeed,  some  of  them  testified 
that  a  thing  could  not  be  baptized,  because  it  could 
not  go  under  walcr;  showing  beyond  the  reach  of  con- 
troversy, that  nothing  short  of  immersion  can  possibly 
be  baptism. 

If  the  testimony  of  the  whole  Greek  world  is  to  be 
rejected,  where  shall  we  go  to  find  the  meaning  of  a 


A"ND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  71 

Greek  word  ?  If  the  Greeks  do  not  understand  their 
own  language,  pray  tell  me  who  does  ?  It  is  a  little 
too  silly  to  hear  Methodists  of  this  country  say,  that 
the  Greeks  are  not  competent  to  decide  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  a  Greek  word.  The  effort  to  show  that  the 
Greeks  are  not  competent  witnesses  upon  the  meaning 
of  baptizo,  is  all  to  serve  a  purpose  ;  for  they  know 
that  the  Greek  world  is  against  them.  The  testimony 
ofStrabo  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  settle  the  question; 
for  he  says,  that  in  the  water  of  a  certain  lake  a  man 
cannot  be  baptized,  because  he  cannot  go  under  the 
icater.  Now,  I  ask  any  man  of  reason,  if  Strabo  would 
have  said  that  a  man  could  not  be  baptized  because 
he  could  not  go  under  the  luater,  if  he  could  have  been 
baptized  by  having  a  few  drops  sprinkled  upon  his 
face  ?  Let  Methodists  decide,  as  they  have  to  give 
an  account  to  their  God  in  the  day  of  eternity. 

Mr.  Terrell  made  no  direct  reply 't5  this  my  first 
argument ;  but  he  tried  to  get  rid  of  it  by  saying  Bro. 
Campbell  was  against  me  in  going  to  the  classics. — 
.^ut  1  proved  by  Bro.  Campbell,  Prof.  Stuart,  and  Er- 
nesti,  that  the  "  Principles  of  interpretation  are  com- 
mon to  sacred  and  profane  waitings, '  and  that  the 
word  baptizo  means  in  the  New  Testament  what  it 
means  everywhere  else. 

He  said  baptizo  was  a  word  of  idiom.  But  I  proved 
that  words  which  express  outward  physical  action,  are 
not  the  subjects  of  idiomatic  or  special  law  ;  and  that 
they  mean  the  same  in  all  languages,  nations,  and 
•countries.     To  this  Mr.  Terrell  has  made  no  reply. 

His  next  effort  to  get  rid  of  my  argument  was^  that 
words  among  the  Jews  did  not  mean  what  they  did 
among  the  Greeks.  But  1  proved  by  Josephus,  a  Jew, 
who  wrote  his  history  in  the  Greek  language  in  the 
very  days  of  the  Apostles,  that  baptizo  among  the 
Jews,  in  the  days  of  Apostles,  meant  to  immerse,  and 
only  to  immerse.     To  this  he  has  made  no  reply. 

His    first  example  for  another  meaning  was  from 


73  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Hippocrates.  But  I  proved  by  Hippocrates  that  the 
word  baptizo  in  his  writings  meant  to  immerse,  and 
only  to  immerse.  "  Shall  1  not  laugh  at  the  man," 
says  he,  "who  baptizes  his  ship,  by  overloading  it, 
and  then  complains  of  the  sea,  that  it  ini>u'fs  it  with 
its  cargo."'  The  putting  of  a  ship  under  water,  he  says, 
was  baptizing  it.  This  causes  the  old  blister  plaster  to 
draw  so  severely  upon  his  Methodism,  that  he  found  it 
very  convenient  to  say  nothing  more  about  it. 

His  second  example  was,  the  baptism  of  suffering 
and  tears  which  he  professed  to  quote  from  Eusebius. 
But  I  denied  that  Eusebius  used  the  word  baptizo,  and 
call  upon  him  again  and  again  to  prove  that  he  did  , 
but  he  has  found  it  most  convenient,  and  safe  for  him- 
self and  cause,  to  say  nothing  more  about  it.  This 
was  another  splendid  failure,  and  a  beautiful  comment 
upon  his  honesty  to  boot. 

Thus  my  fifst  argument  stands  unmoved,  showing 
that  baptizo  before,  and  in  the  days  of  Christ  and  the 
Apostles,  meant  to  immerse,  and  only  to  immerse. 

2.  My  second  argument  was  drawn  from  the  testi- 
mony of  the  wisest,  the  most  eminent,  and  learned 
pedobaptists  of  the  world ;  who,  with  one  voice  declare 
that  my  proposition  is  true  ;  and  that  "  baptizo  is  not 
to  be  interpreted  of  sprinkling-,  but  always  of  immer- 
sion." A'ow,  is  there  any  reason  why  men  should 
make  the  confession  that  they  are  wrong  and  others 
are  right,  if  they  knew  that  they  were  right  and  others 
wrong  ?  Who  does  not  see  that  nothing  but  the  force 
of  truth,  combined  with  honesty,  could  have  caused 
them  to  confess  that  sprinkhng  is  not  baptism,  anc 
that  baptizo  always  meant  to  immerse. 

To  this  argument  Mr.  Terrell  rephed,  that  Dr.  Clark. 
a  Methodist,  said,  that  it  meant  to  sprinkle,  as  well  as 
to  immerse.  For  this  argument  he  ought  to  be  called 
Williamson  Terrell  the  Great;  for  if  a  man  can  prove 
his  principles  right  by  one  of  his  own  party,  he  cer- 
tainly must  be  great. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  73 

3.  My  third  argument  was  drawn  from  the  use  of 
the  word  in  the  bible.  I  proved  by  the  Apostles  that 
when  a  man  was  baptized,  he  was  "  bin  led  in  baptism.''^ 
This  never  can  be  made  to  mean  buried  by  having  a 
few  drops  of  water  sprinkled  on  the  face.  I  also 
proved  that  Christ  commanded  the  people  to  be  bap- 
tized in  water,  and  not  the  water  to  be  baptized  upon 
the  people.  Now,  you  cannot  sprinkle  a  man,  but 
you  can  immerse  him;  so  it  follows  that  immersion 
was  the  thing  commanded  by  our  Lord.  You  can 
sprinkle  water  upon  a  man,  but  you  cannot  sprinkle 
a  man  in  water.  Christ  commanded  the  man,  and  not 
the  water  to  be  used.  We  can  immerse  a  man  in  wa- 
ter, but  we  never  can  sprinkle  him  in  water.  This 
argument  Mr.  Terrell  has  said  nothing  about.  It  never 
has  been,  nor  never  can  be  answered.  Let  that  be 
remembered. 

4.  My  fourth  argument  was,  that  baptizo  is  the  only 
word  in  the  Greek  language  which  can  definitely  ex- 
press the  action  of  immersion;  or  if  baptizo  does  not, 
there  is  no  word  in  that  language  that  can  express  the 
action  of  immersion.  The  Greek  language  has  a  word 
for  sprinkle,  a  word  for  pour,  and  a  word  for  wash,  but 
none  of  them  was  ever  used  to  denote  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  ;  a  clear  proof  that  Christ  neither  com- 
manded sprinkling,  pouring,  nor  washing.  If  he  used 
the  strongest  word  for  immersion  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, what  can  be  plainer  than  that  immersion  was 
the  thing  intended  ? 

5.  My  fifth  and  last  argument,  was  drawn  from  the 
fact,  that  the  whole  Christian  church,  East  and  West, 
practiced  immersion  only,  for  thirteen  hundred  years 
after  Christ.  To  this  universal  proposition  the  only 
exceptions  are,  .some  two  or  three  persons  who  were 
thought  to  be  too  sick  to  be  imm.ersed,and  consequent- 
ly the  Pope,  or  some  of  his  tribe  allowed  them  to  be 
sprinkled.  The  truth  of  this  argument  Mr.  Terrell  has 
not  disputed,  nor  will  he,  for  ie  knows  it  is  true.    I 


74  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

have  also  proved  in  connection  with  this,  that  when 
the  change  was  made  from  immersion  to  sprinkling, 
that  it  was  done  by  the  Western  or  Roman  church. — 
Sprinkling  is  a  part  of  CathoUcism.  "  No  church,"  says 
Dr.  Wall, "  however  corrupt  in  other  respects,  has  ever 
dared  to  change  the  law  of  immersion  into  sprinkling, 
except  the  Roman  hierarchy^  and  those  churches  which 
derive  their  sprinkling  from  ihsit  poUiiled  source.''^ 

As  you  have  all  heard  the  arguments  on  both  sides, 
we  leave  the  question,  without  deciding  upon  the  ef- 
fort of  Mr,  Terrell.  What  little  he  has  said,  you  have 
all  heard.  I  would  however  have  been  greatly  pleas- 
ed, if  he  had  only  had  manly  courage  enough  to  come 
up  and  meet  my  arguments  fairly ;  but  I  did  not  ex- 
pect it,  and  consequently  am  not  disappointed.  Meth- 
odists know  that  the  best  thing  that  can  be  done  for 
Methodism  is  not  to  join  issue  with  any  one,  upon  any 
point. 

I  thank  you  all  for  the  candid  hearing  you  have 
given  us  both. 

[Time  expired.] 

[mr.  Terrell's   fifth  reply.] 
Gentlemen  Moderators — Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

My  friend,  Mr.  Pritchard  makes  a  great  parade  over 
Dr.  Wall,  how  great  a  man  he  was,  what  he  knew  of 
the  history  of  the  church  &c.  &c.  Dr.  Wall  was  an  im- 
mersionist  many  other  absurd  notions,  notwithstanding 
and  held  the  gentleman  speaks  so  highly  of  him. 

I  wish  to  set  the  gentleman  right,  on  the  quotation 
from  Acts  2.  I  did  not  say  that  tongues  are  not  spoken 
of  in  the  passage,  or  I  did  not  wish  to  be  so  understood; 
bdt  it  was  a  tongue  that  sat  upon  each  of  them,  and  not 
/orto-we^,  as  he  will  have  it.  It  was  the  tongue  of  fire 
that  sat  upon  each  of  them.  He  says  the  same  thing 
that  sat  upon  each  one  of  them,  filled  the  house  where 
they  were  sitting.     I  cannot  understand  him. 

Mr.  Pritchard  called  <fcipon  me  to  produce  a  word  that 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  75 

signifies  to  immerse  if  baptizo  does  not.  I  have  produced 
kataditno.  Bat  he  is  not  pleased  with  this,  and  says  it 
means  to  "t///?  ^0M;n."  Well  then  it  means  to  zw?me?\ve. 
He  has  not  then  made  any  thing  here.  Does  he  not 
mean  that  the  ship  was  sinking,  and  not  that  kataduno 
means  sinking  duwii? 

He  may  twist  as  many  ways  as  he  pleases,  but  there 
was  no  dipping  in  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  nor 
can  he  ever  find  any.  On  the  contrary,  as  I  have  be- 
fore told  him,  the  Holy  Spirit  was  poiwed  out.  He  has 
tried  hard  to  turn  this  pouring  into  immersion^  but  he 
has  not  succeeded,  nor  do  I  intend  that  he  shall  suc- 
ceed. 

The  gentleman  does  not  like  what  I  have  said  about 
kataduno.  When  that  word  is  used  relative  to  the 
sinking  of  a  ship,  does  it  not  mean  sinking  down? 
Surely  it  does.  I  have  then,  found  a  Greek  word  that 
signifies  irnmerse  without  going  to  baptizo.  This  the 
gentleman  defied  me  to  do;  and  I  think  I  have  now 
done  it  to  his  satisfaction. 

1  have  argued  that  there  was  no  dipping  in  the  Red 
Sea;  and  after  all  the  gentleman's  efibrts,  he  has  pro- 
duced none.  I  have  showed  that  the  water  was  pour- 
ed out  of  the  cloud  upon  them,  but  he  will  have  it  that 
they  were  baptized  in  the  cloud.  This,  however,  does 
not  suit  his  case;  for  he  will  not  say  they  were  dipped  in 
the  cloud.  No,  m}^  christian  friends,  there  w^as  no  dip- 
ping here,  unless  my  friend  Mr.  P.  w^ill  refer  to  the 
Egyptians.  They  were  all  immersed.  He  would  not 
wish  to  follow  their  example! 

I  read  you  the  account  of  the  jailor's  conversion, 
from  Acts  16,  but  the  gentleman  seems  not  pleased 
with  it.  But  I  cannot  help  that.  It  says,  "they  were 
cast  into  the  imvsr  prison."  Well,  an  inrter  supposes 
an  outer,  most  certainly.  When  the  jailor  "brought 
them  out,"  it  was  only  out  of  the  inner  prison,  into  the 
outer  prison,  where  his  house  was.  This  is  clear  from 
Paul's  language  when  he  said  "let  them  bring  us  out.''^ 


t6  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Did  he  throw  himself  upon  his  dignity,  and  say  thig, 
when  he  had  already  been  out,  andoff  to  the  river  bap- 
tizing? No,  my  friends,  I  am  not  willing  to  accuse  tht 
apostle  of  acting  in  this  way. 

It  was  not  strange  to  baptize  in  a  house  in  that  day 
Paul  was  baptized  in  a  house  ;  and  what  goes  to  show 
that  he  was  not  immersed  was  that  he  was  baptized 
standing  up.      Annanias   said   to   him,   arise  and   be 
baptized  and  wash  away  thy  sins. 

Not  only  so,  but  it  does  not  prove  immersion  to  refer 
to  where  the  scripture  speaks  of  their  going  down  into 
the  water,  for  I  myself  have  gone  down  into  the  watei 
and  poured  a  man.     A  journal  of  this 

[Here  Mr.  Pritchard  called  for  the  reading  of  the 
fifth  rule.  The  moderators  examined  the  rule,  and 
decided  Mr.  Terrell  out  of  order,  and  he  proceeded.] 

The  gentleman  has  failed,  signally  failed.  He  de- 
fines baptism  dij).  But  I  have  brought  katadnno ^\\\i\Q\t 
signifies  immerse,  and  have  abundantly  shown  that&«/;- 
iiio  cannot  invariably  have  that  meaning.  But  here 
his  failure  has  been  complete,  and  obvious  to  all. 

My  friend's  first  appeal  was  to  the  classics.  But 
this  proved  unfortunate  for  his  cause  ;  for  they  come 
so  far  short  of  sustaining  his  exclusive  position,  that  1 
have  shown  from  some  of  the  most  distinguished  of 
them  that  the  word  in  question  was  used  where  it 
could  not  mean  immerse.  The  case  of  the  blister  plas- 
ter is  sufficient  on  this  point.  I  have  certainly  shown, 
that  baptize,  in  that  case  could  mean  no  more  than  to 
wet  or  moisten,  and  that  it  could  not  mean  immerse. 
What  has  Mr.  Pritchard  done  with  this  case  ?  lie  has 
never  extricated  himself  from  the  difficulty  he  was  in. 
and  he  never  can.     He  evidently  failed. 

Again,  he  referred  to  distinguished  Christian  wri- 
ters, but  with  no  better  success  than  he  had  among  the 
classics.  Which  one  did  he  quote,  who  says  immer- 
sion  alone  is  baptism  ?  Not  one  of  them  ;  but  on  the 
contrary,  I  have  referred  to  some  of  them,  who  state 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  77 

the   Opposite.      Here    he   also   made   a  most  signal 
failure. 

He  finally  came  to  the  scriptures,  and  quoted  from 
the  sixth  of  Romans,  to  prove  that  we  are  buried.  But 
1  showed  that  they  were  not  buried  in  baptism,  but 
•'  buried  in  baptism  into  deaths  They  were  not  buried 
in  water,  but  in  the  likeness  of  the  death  of  Christ. — 
He  contends  that  the  resurrection  here  is  literal ;  but 
in  this  he  is  wrong :  it  is  not  literal.  It  was  by 
'^'(ith  they  were  raised,  and  not  by  a  preacher's  arm,  as 
^Mr.  Pritchard  would  have  it.     Here  he  also  failed. 

The  term  baptize  in  Acts  2d,  does  not  mean  im- 
inerse.  This  I  have  aiready  shown  repeatedly.  I  tried 
to  get  him  to  notice  the  baptism  of  fire,  but  this  I  could 
iot  do.  I  showed  that  if  the  baptism  of  fire  means  the 
-ire  of  the  bottomless  pit,  as  Mr.  Campbell  has  it,  that 
'he  wicked  would  be  dipped  in  it,  and  raised  up  out  of 
t.  But  I  could  not  get  the  gentleman  to  go  down  to 
:he  pit. 

Now,  my  Christian  friends,  I  consider  the  question 
settled,  not  by  your  humble  speaker,  but  by  the  word 
of  God.  The  gentleman  has  gone  from  the  word  of 
God,  to  the  classics,  and  from  the  classics  to  the  learn- 
ed, and  from  these  to  the  opponents  of  immersion,  and 
then  after  all  his  preaching  against  ojo/??.zo?i5,  he  has  now 
spent  the  most  of  his  time  in  quoting  from  the  opinion.s 
of  men,  and  speaking  of  them.  The  scripture  is  not 
clear  enough  for  him  after  all. 

Another  argument  I  have  offered,  which  is  that  im- 
mersion is  so  inconsistent  that  persons  would  frequent- 
ly be  compelled  to  do  without  baptism  a  long  time 
were  we  to  confine  ourselves  to  it  exclusively.  This 
we  see  in  the  practice  of  the  Reformers.  They  gen- 
erally build  their  meeting  houses  conveniently  to  wa- 
ter, but  still  they  have  to  go  miles  to  the  water,  and 
very  frequently  have  to  defer  it.  I  cannot  think  the 
Lord  would  have  appointed  that  which  in  so  many 
instances  would  be  impracticable. 


78  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Philip  was  baptized  in  the  first  water  they  came  to, 
after  he  heard  the  word — yes  in  it,  if  you  prefer  it.  f 
immerse,  but  I  am  the  opponent  of  this  exclusive  im- 
mersion system. 

I  was  not  afraid  to  discuss  the  subject  longer,  but 
four  days  is  long  enough. 

He  may  have  so  little  to  do  that  he  can  spend  more 
time  in  debating,  but  the  arduous  duties  devolving  on 
me  as  a  circuit  preacher,  are  so  great  that  I  have  not 
more  than  four  days'  time  to  devote  to  debating.  If 
the  gentleman  has  nothing  else  to  do,  his  situation  is 
different  from  mine.  I  am  busily  engaged  all  the  time, 
and  it  was  with  difficulty  I  could  spare  the  time  even 
agreed  upon,  from  my  pressing  engagements. 

My  Christian  friends,  you  have  now  heard  us  on  one 
proposition,  and  are  now  prepared  to  decide  whether 
all  who  are  not  immersed,  are  to  be  regarded  as  never 
having  been  baptized,  and  as  living  in  disobedience  to 
the  command  of  God  '•  be  hapfized.^^  Are  you  now 
willing  to  decide  that  all  the  good  and  pious  people 
in  all  the  pedobaptist  ranks  are  unbaptized  and  living 
in  disobedience  to  the  comm.andment  of  God,  and  con- 
sequently in  sin  ?  Are  you  prepared  to  disfellowship 
all  such,  and  declare  that  they  are  not  in  covenant  re- 
lation with  God?  Are  you  prepared  to  decide  that 
all  who  have  died  without  immersion,  have  died  in  dis- 
obedience to  the  commandment  of  God  ?  Are  you 
prepared  to  say  that  the  sick  who  cannot  be  immersed 
must  therefore  die  in  disobedience  to  God?  Such  is 
the  dreadful  predicament  into  which  the  gentleman's 
exclusive  immersion  runs  him. 

Thank  God,  Christian  friends,  the  Lord  does  not  re- 
quire impossibilities  at  our  hands.  He  has  left  us  to 
chose  whichever  mode  we  may  see  proper;  and  if  one 
mode  is  not  practicable,  another  is.  Not  only  so,  but  1 
have  showed  that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
pouring,  which  the  gentleman  has  never  got  over.  No, 
he  has  not  got  over  it,  but  has  made  a  most  manifest 
failure. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  79 

He  has  referred  to  the  expression  "  buried  by  bap- 
tism into  death,"  but  here  he  failed,  for  they  were  not 
buried  in  ivater,  but  into  death;  and  the  resurrection 
was  not  hteral,  but  they  were  raised  through  the  faith 
of  the  operation  of  God  who  raised  him  from  the  dead, 
A  man  who  is  immersed  is  raised  up  by  the  preacher's 
arm,  and  not  by  faith. 

I  ask  then,  what  becomes  of  the  doctrine  of  exclu- 
sive immersion  ?  It  is  not  sustained  by  the  classics. 
It  is  not  sustained  by  the  learned  and  distinguished 
Christian  writers.  It  is  not  sustained  in  the  scripture. 
No,  my  friends,  and  it  cannot  be  sustained  by  any 
good  authority.  You  see  then,  the  position  the  gentle- 
man occupies.  He  has  set  out  to  establish  the  exclu- 
sive doctrine  of  immersion.  His  position  is  not  that 
immersion  is  baptism,  for  we  all  believes  this  ;  but  we 
do  not  believe  that  immersion  oiili/  is  baptism. 

Christian  friends,  I  feel  warm  on  the  subject,  and  I 
think  you  are  convinced  by  this  time  that  Mr.  Pritch- 
ard  has  failed  to  establish  his  position,  and  ever  must 
fail. 

I  might  go  on  at  great  length,  but  I  deem  it  unneces- 
sary ;  I  think  the  question  settled ;  and  although  my 
time  is  not  out,  I  think  it  useless  to  detain  you  at  great- 
er length. 


so        '  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Wednesday,  9  o'clock,  Nov.  I7th,  1847. 
PRAYER  BY  REV.  SNYDER. 

The  president  moderator  read  the  second  proposition 
as  follows: 

The  infant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a  proper  subject  of 
Christian  Baptism. 

Mr.  Terrell  rises: 
Gentlemen  Moderators: 

Truly  was  the  subject  discussed  on  yesterday  an  im- 
portant one:  the  one  to-day  surel}^  is  of  no  less  impor- 
tance. The  question  to  be  discussed  this  morning  leads 
us  directly  to  enquire  whether  our  children  are  leit  out 
of  the  visible  church  of  God,  entirely  out  of  the  cove- 
nant of  promise,  without  any  provision  for  their  eternal 
welfare.  Now  the  gentleman  agrees  with  me,  that 
baptism  is  the  act  by  which  we  enter  into  the  church: 
for,  in  our  correspondence,  he  ofl'ered  to  affirm  that 
baptism  when  preceded  by  faith  and  repentance,  is  di- 
vinely appointed  for  the  remission  of  sins  and  induc- 
tion into  the  church  of  God.  My  proposition  reads: 
The  ill  f ant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a  proper  subject  of  Chris- 
tian baptism. 

As  I  expect  to  be  straightened  for  time,  as  1  was  on 
yesterday,  I  shall  proceed  directly  to  the  subject  without 
further  preliminary. 

1.  My  first  argument  is,  tha.t  baptism  is  the  appoint- 
ed token  of  church  membership,  in  Christ's  kingdom. 
Infants  by  the  Abrahamic  covenant  are  made  heirs. — 
in  proof  of  this  I  will  read  from  Gen.  12:  2,  3.  "I  will 
bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse  them  that  curse 
thee,  and  in  thee  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  of  the  na- 
tions be  blessed."  I  will  also  read  from  Gen.  15:  4. 
''  And,  behold,  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  him, 
saying.  This  shall  not  be  thine  heir;  but  he  that  shall 
come  forth  out  of  thine  own  bowels  shall  be  thine 
heir."  I  will  also  read  you  a  passage  found.  Gen.  17  : 
9,  10.  "  And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  Thou  shaltkeep 
my  covenant  therefore,  thou,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in 


A>fD  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  81 

^-heir  generations.  *'  This  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall 
keep,  between  me,  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee, 
Every  man-child  shall  be  circumcised."  You  will 
bear  in  mind,  that  it  says  this  shall  be  an  everlasting 
covenant,  and  not  that  it  is  to  terminate.  This  is  the 
Christian  or  the  gospel  covenant,  spoken  of  in  Galla- 
tians  3:  14,  and  reads  as  follows :  "  That  the  blessing 
of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Jesus 
Christ;  that  we  might  receive  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit  through  faith.  Brethren,  I  speak  after  the  man- 
ner of  men;  though  it  be  but  a  man's  covenant,  yet  if 
it  be  confirmed,  no  man  disannuleth,  or  addeth  thereto. 
A^ow  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises 
made.  He  saith  not,  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many  ;  but 
as  of  one.  And  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ.  And  this 
1  say,  that  the  promise  which  was  confirmed  before  of 
vjlod  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make. 
the  promise  of  none  effect."  Here  the  apostle  pleads 
the  claims  of  the  Gentiles.  This  covenant  was  con- 
firmed of  God  in  Christ  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
before  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  pointed  to  the  Christ- 
ian dispensation,  and  consequently  was  not  done  away, 

idthough  "  Christ  was  the  end  ot  the  law  ',  &c. 

Will  the  gentleman  excuse  this  one,  <fec.? 

Mr.  Pritchardsaid,  You  are  excusable. 

Mr.  Terrell  proceeds. 

The  law,  I  say,  did  not  disannul  the  covenant.  Jn- 
iants  are  not  then  excluded,  but  are  in  the  covenant 
and  should  be  recognized,  for  they  were  in  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  and  the  Abrahamic  covenant  is  the 
Christian  covenant.  In  Genesis  17  chap,  we  are  as- 
sured that  the  Lord  would  establish  his  covenant,  and 
Ro.  4:  16,  we  are  informed  that  the  promise  was  sure 
to  all  the  seed.  The  condition  is  by  faith.  Abraham 
is  the  father  of  many  nations,  and  the  promise  is  by 
faith.  The  conditions  of  the  covenant  have  always 
been  the  same.     It  is  now  as  it  was  then,  faith  in  God. 


SI  '  DEBATE  ON  BAPTI.:,M 

Abraham  had  strong  faith  in  God,  and  it  was  counted 
i:nto  him  for  righteousness.  The  condition  of  pardon 
is  now  the  same  as  it  was  then — it  is  faitK  in  God.— 
This  brings  rae  to  my  second  argument  or  proposition,. 
which  is  as  follows  : 

2.  The  church  of  God  is  the  same  in  both  dispensations. 
On  this  point  I  will  read  you  isa.  GO:  1,  5.  "Arise, 
shine ;  for  thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
is  risen  upon  thee.  For,  behold,  the  darkness  shall 
cover  the  earth,  and  gross  darkness  the  people  :  but 
the  Lord  shall  arise  upon  thee,  and  his  glory  shall  be 
.seen  upon  thee  ;  and  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  thy 
light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising  :  lift  up 
thine  eyes  round  about,  and  see  ;  all  they  gather  them 
^;elves  together  from  far,  and  thy  daughters  shall  be 
nursed  at  thy  side."  This  was  the  church  of  God 
among  the  Jews. 

Again  :  I  will  read  from  Isa.  72:  1.  "For  Zion'ssake 
will  I  not  hold  my  peace,  and  for  Jerusalem's  sake  will 
J  not  rest,  until  the  righteous  thereof  go  forth  as  bright 
Rpss,  and  the  salvation  thereof  as  a  lamp  that  burn 
rth."  The  same  church,  the  righteous,  were  to  g? 
forth  as  a  lamp  that  burneth,  and  the  Lord  promise^i 
to  give  it  a  new  name.  The  J^ord  said,  "  the  Gentiles 
shall  come  to  thy  light ;"  that  is  the  light  of  the  church  , 
.'.iid  the  covenant  Vv'as  said  to  be  an  ever/as  ling  cov 
cnant,  that  could  not  be  disannulcd,  and  made  with  th.', 
.seed  of  Abraham,  and  not  merely  those  under  the  law, 
but  all  the  church  of  God  every  Vv'here,  in  every  dis- 
pensation. If  you  v/ill  read  Isa.  65:  15,  you  will  find 
it  arsserled,  that  the  churches  are  called  by  the  sam,' 
najnc — they  are  both  called  Zion  and  Jerusalem.  Bj;t 
the  ('hnrch  was  to  have  a  new  name  ;  it  was  to  be 
r.alled  by  the  Christian  name,  and  you  will  find  th^^ 
apostle  equally  as  explicit,  Ro.  11:  17  :  '•  And  if  some  of 
the  branches  be  broken  off.  and  thou,  being  a  wild  oliv<^; 
ti'ce,  wert  graffed  in  among  them,  and  with  them  par- 
takesl  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree,  boast  not 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  8^ 

against  the  branches.  But  if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest 
not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee.  Thou  wilt  say  then 
the  branches  were  broken  ofl',  that  it  might  be  graffed 
in.  Well;  because  of  unbelief  they  were  broken  ofl*, 
and  thou  standcst  by  faith.  Be  not  high-minded,  but 
fear  :  For  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  take 
heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee.  Behold  therefore  the 
goodness  and  severity  of  God ;  on  them  which  fell, 
severity  ;  but  towards  thee,  goodness  ;  if  thou  continue 
in  his  goodness  :  otherwise  thou  also  shalt  be  cut  ofi 
And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall 
be  graffed  in  ;  for  God  is  able  to  grafif  them  in  again 
For  if  thou  wcrtcut  tit  of  lie  olive  tree  v/hich 
is  wild  by  nature,  and  wert  graffed  contrary  to  nature 
into  a  good  olive  tree,  how  much  more  shall  these, 
which  be  the  natural  br.anches,  be  graffed  into  their 
own  olive  tree?  For  I  would  not,  brethren,  that  ye 
should  be  ignorant  cf  this  mystery,  lest  ye  should  be 
wise  in  your  own  conceits,  that  blindness  in  part  i:^ 
happened  to  Israel,  until  the  iblncss  of  the  Gentiles  be 
come  in."  Now  the  Jews  were  broken  off.  From  what 
w^ere  they  broken  off?  The  church  most  certainly. — 
The  Gentiles  were  grafted  in.  What  were  they  graft- 
ed into  ?  Into  the  church,  the  very  same  church,  the 
Jews  were  broken  off  from.  The  Jev.-s  are  represented 
as  common  citizens  here,  and  the  Gentiles  as  foreign - 
'ers,  or  those  afar  off.  The  middle-wall  was  broken 
down,  and  the  Gentiles  initiated  into  the  same  church 
with  the  Jews.  On  this  point  see  also  Eph.  2:  12,  2i . 
"  At  that  time  ye  were  without  Christ,  being  alien ^> 
from  the  common  wealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  from 
the  covenants  of  promise,  having  no  hope,  and  with- 
out God  in  the  world  :  but  now,  in  Christ  Jesus,  y^^ 
who  sometimes  were  far  off,  are  made  nigh  by  the 
blood  of  Christ.  For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made 
both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  ci 
partition  between  us  :  having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the 
eumltv,  even  the  law  of  commandments  contained  in 


^.4  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

ordinances  ;  for  to  make  in  himself  of  twain  one  new 
man,  so  making  peace;  and  that  he  might  reconcile  both 
xmto  G^od  in  one  body  by  the  cross,  having  slain  the 
enmity  thereby;  and  come  and  preached  peace  to  you 
that  were  afar  off  and  to  them  that  were  nigh.  For 
through  him  we  both  have  access  by  one  spirit  unto 
the  Father.  Now  therefore  ye  are  no  more  strangers 
and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints  and 
of  the  household  of  God ;  and  are  built  Upon  the 
I'oundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone;  in  whom  all  the 
building,  fitly  framed  together,  groweth  unto  a  holy 
temple  into  the  Lord :  in  whom  ye  are  also  building 
together  lor  aa  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit." 

As  my  argument  is  to  be  a  scripture  argument,  I 
will  read  another  passage  from  the  15th  chapter  of 
Acts :  "  And  after  they  had  held  their  peace,  James 
answered,  saying,  Men  and  brethren,  harken  to  us: — 
Simeon  hath  declared  how  God  at  first  did  visit  the 
Gentiles,  to  take  out  of  them  a  people  for  his  name. — 
And  to  this  agree  the  words  of  the  prophet  as  it  is  writ- 
ten. After  this  1  v/ill  return,  and  will  build  again  the 
tabernacle  of  David,  which  is  fallen  down;  and  I  will 
build  again  the  ruins  thereof,  and  I  will  set  it  up  :  that 
ihe  residue  of  men  might  seek  after  the  Lord,  and  all 
ihe  Gentiles,  upon  whom  my  name  is  called,  saith  the 
Lord,  who  doeth  all  these  things."  Here,  it  is  said, 
xhe  Lord  will  build  again  his  tabernacle — not  build  a 
:iew  one,  as  my  friend  would  have  it,  but  build  again 
ihat  which  lied  fallctL  down.  God's  church  was  that 
which  had  fallen  down,  and  that  w^hich  he  declared  he 
would  build  again  ;  this  he  has  done,  and  as  his  church 
is  the  same  in  all  ages,  and  as  children  were  put  in  by 
positive  law,  it  follows  that  they  are  still  entitled  to 
membership,  unless  the  gentleman  can  show  positive 
law  to  exclude  them.  Till  he  shows  this,  they  are  en- 
titled to  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 

The  olive  tree  spoken  of  was  the  church,  and  the  Jews 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  »5 

were  cut  off  from  the  church,  because  of  unbelief. — 
The  Gentiles  were  brought  in  by  faith,  and  are  no 
longer  foreigners  and  strangers,  but  fellow- citizens — 
members  of  the  household  of  God.  This  shows  that 
the  church  remains  the  same,  and  that  the  Gentiles 
were  merely  brought  into  it. 

(Time  expired.) 

[.MR.  PRITCHARD's  FIRST  REPLY.] 

Gentlemen  Moderators — Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

1  agree  with  my  friend  Mr.  Terrell  that  the  proposi- 
tion to  be  discussed  to-day  is  a  very  important  one;  but 
not  more  important  than  the  one  we  discussed  on  yes- 
terday. That  it  is  important,  and  very  important  to 
know  who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  as  well 
as  of  every  other  institution  of  the  Lord  all  agree. — 
With  me,  baptism,  prayer,  the  Lord's  supper,  and  every 
other  commandment  of  the  Lord,  have  their  proper 
subjects;  and  no  man,  woman,  or  child  can  submit  to 
any  of  them  in  obedience  to  the  Lord,  but  he  who  is 
prepared  according  to  the  word  of  God.  Mr.  Terrell, 
and  myself  seem  not  to  have  been  taught  in  the  samt- 
school — we  have  studied  under  ditferent  teachers  and 
consequently  have  come  to  different  conclusions.  It 
seems  to  be  the  opinion  of  himself  and  party,  that  a 
person  can  come  to  God  and  obey  his  commandments, 
as  well  without  faith  as  with  it;  but  I  apprehend  he 
will  learn  a  lesson  either  in  time  or  eternity,  that  I  have 
long  since  learned  from  my  old  teacher,  viz — "That  he 
who  cu7nes  to  God  must  believe''  before  he  can  acceptably 
obt^y  the  Lord. 

The  real  issue  between  us  upon  this  subject  is, 
Does  the  Lord  require  those  who  neitlier  believe 
nor  understand  the  Gospel,  to  obey  his  comandments 
without  faith.  The  law  of  the  Lord,  under  which  I 
feel  solemnly  bound  to  act,  and  under  which,  I  think, 
every  conscientious  man  who  understands  it  will  act, 
says,  "He  that  bdlcveth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 


"Ho  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Mark  the  language!  It  does  not  say,  that  he  wlio  is  bap- 
lized  without  faith,  reason,  or  understanding,  and  af- 
terwards obtains  faitli  around  a  Jiiourneis-hcnch,  or 
some  other  place,  shall  he  be  saved;  but  he  that  belic- 
i-eth  first,  and  is  then  baptized,  shall  be  saved.  I  will 
then,  forever  raaintain,  that  the  very  law  of  baptism 
itself,  forever  excludes  from  this  institution  all  who  do 
not  believe.  Mr.  Terrell  in  his  hurried  and  confused 
way  of  speaking,  has  said,  in  one  half  hour,  almost 
every  thing  he  has  to  say,  in  favor  of  his  infant  sprink- 
ling; and  vrho,  I  am  constrained  to  ask,  but  himself 
v/ould  over  have  thought,  that  the  passages  which  he 
has  brought  forward  proved  that  infants  were  to  be  bap- 
tized  vathout  faith,  reason,  understanding,  appreheu-- 
sion  or  comprehension?  Not  one  of  them,  so  far  as  I 
nov/ remember,  speaks  of  infants,  as  the  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism,  or  of  any  thing  else. 

It  seems  to  be  rather  a  difiicult  matter  for  him  to  read 
)iis  notes  this  morning,  which  by  the  by,  if  I  am  not 
mistaken  in  the  writing,  were  supplied  by  some  other 
hand.  The  embarrassment  and  confusion  manifested 
by  him  this  morning,  1  suppose  arise  from  the  fact, 
that  he  has  something  to  prove  to-day.  Sonicthing  to 
prove  did  I  say?  Something  that  he  knows  he  cannot 
prove,  I  should  have  said: 

He  commenced  his  address  by  an  appeal  to  the  vul- 
!.^ar  feelings  of  fathers  and  mothers,  as  if  the  people  of 
This  country  uere  possessed  of  no  more  sagacity,  than 
to  be  wheeled  into  his  infant  sprinkling  dogma  without 
reason,  argument,  or  proof.  I  know  the  people  now 
present  too  well  to  believe,  that  any  thing  short  of  evi- 
dence, reason,  or  necessity  will  turn  them  from  ihe  Old 
.fcrusalem  Gospel,  to  the  newfangled  notions  of  mod- 
ern Pedo-baptists  parties. 

The  question,  he  says,  is,  shall  we  have  our  children 
baptized  and  brought  into  the  church?  or  shall  we  leave 
them  out  of  the  church,  ?rz7/w?/^  any  jrovision  for  their 
<f€rnal  well-bdng?     Mr,  Terrell  and  his  party  are  belie- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  87 

vers  in  infant  damnation,  and  he,  without  intending  it, 
has  most  fully  declared  his  faith  in  this  horrible  dogma 
of  the  Romish  Church,  by  saying,  "unbaptized  infar/is 
are  out  of  the  church,  without  any  provision  for  ihc'ic 
eternal  well-being."  If  unbaptized  infants  are  witho.i: 
any  provision  for  their  eternal  well-being,  what  can  hti 
more  evident,  than,  that  they  are  without  God.  withoir. 
hope,  "children  of  vrcth.  and  liable  to  ctiTiial  daw  nation. ''' 
It  will  not  do  for  Mr.  Terrell  to  attempt  to  deny  this 
i'em  of  his  party's  creed,  for  I  am  prepared  to  prove  that 
Methodists  believe,  in  common  with  their  Old  M^^thtr, 
the  ilomish  church,  that,  if  infants  are  not  baptized  '(■■■• 
the  remission  of  original  sin,  they  are  without  God, 
''children  of  wrath,"  and  exposed  to  eternal  damn a,ticii 
in  the  woHd  to  come.  Let  him  put  me  to  the  procf  :l* 
he  dares! 

i  agree  with  him,  he  says,  that  baptism  is  the  a.t 
through  which  Vv'e  pass  into  the  Christian  Church  and 
into  the  Gospel  covenant.  I  believe  with  all  my  lie;u  t 
that  penitent  beH-evcrs  are  baptized  into  Christ; 
but  I  do  not  agree  with  him  in  his  horrible  Methodisr. 
notion,  that  all  unbaptized  persons  are  without  G<".;, 
and  without  any  provision  for  their  eternal  well-beinj.'. 

I  was  truly  gratified  to  hear  him  say,  that  baptisni  is 
the  act  through  which  we  pass  int  >  the  Christian  Church 
and  into  the  Christian  covenant;  for  if  I  am  not  very 
much  mistaken,  he  will  find  this  into  fatal  to  his  cause, 
before  this  discussion  shall  close.  • 

■  But  he  told  you  that  the  church  has  been  the  same  in 
all  ages,  and  that  infants  always  were  in  the  Church 
and  of  right  ought  to  be,  where  rt/on?  there  is  safety. — 
But  did  he  prove,  or  did  he  try  to  prove,  that  they  were 
always  baptized  i//^o  it,  and  that  this  baptism  was  e<- 
*^ential  to  their  eternal  well-being,  in  the  world  to 
r.ome? 

The  door  into  the  Jewish  church  was  just  as  as  wide, 
as  the  door  into  the  w^orld;  and  all  the  Jewish  children 
Sintered  into  that  old  fks.hli/  establishment,  as  they  en- 


88»  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISES 

tered  into  the  world  by  natural  birth.  But  he  asserted 
among  the  thousand  and  one  assettions  which  he  has 
made  without  proof,  that  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
was  the  Christian  covenant.  Mr.  Terrell  had  certain- 
ly forgotten  that  he  said,  but  a  few  minutes  before,  that 
1  agreed  with  him  that  when  we  enter  into  the  Gos- 
pel covenant,  we  are  baptized  into  it.  Were  the  tieshly 
seed  of  Abraham  baptized  f?ito  the  covenant  of  circum- 
oision,  Mr.  Terrell?  Error  is  an  inconsistent  thing,  and. 
very  disgraceful,  and  distructive  to  the  understandings^ 
of  those  who  hold  it. 

But  infants,  he  says,  were  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 
The  issue  is  not  whether  infants  were  in  the  Abrahamic 
or  any  other  covenant;  but  whether  they  are  proper 
subjects  of  baptism.  To  prove  that  infants  were  in 
the  covenant,  and  that  they  entered  into  it  without  bap- 
tism, comes  not  within  a  thousand  miles  of  his  propo- 
sition.    The  argument  is  this: 

Children  v/ere  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 

But  they  entered  into  it,  not  by  baptism,  but  by  nat- 
ural birih. 

Thei'efore,  children  cannot  enter  into  the  Abraham- 
ic covenant,  without  being  baptizc^d  into  it  ! !  Mr.  Ter- 
rell must  think  that  we  are  a  silly  stupid  set. 

I  must  say  a  word  or  two  more  about  the  covenant 
of  circumcision  being  the  Gospel  covenant.  The  cov- 
«:nant  of  circumcision  excluded  from  the  Jewish  church, 
and  put  to  death  all  uncircumcised  male  members: 
'•That  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  people;  he  hath 
broken  my  covenant,"  says  the  Lord.  Now,  it  is  a 
fact,  that  the  Christian  covenant  forbids  any  man  to 
be  circumcised;  "If  any  man  among  you  shall  be  cir- 
cumcumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  him  nothing."  See 
Gal.  5:  2.  Now,  if  Mr.  Terrell's  position  be  true;  then 
we  have  it,  that,  if  you  are  not  circumcised,  you  shall 
be  cut  off  from  the  people  of  God,  and  if  you  are  cir- 
cumcised, Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing.  That  is,  if 
you  obo^y   you  shall  be  damned^  and  if   you  do  not 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  ^9> 

obey  you  shall  be  damned.  Poor  infant  sprinkling,  how 
art  thou  strained  for  proof? 

These  infant  sprinklers  are  lame  both  in  their  limds 
and  their //rf/.v;  they  can  neither  see  the  inconsistencies, 
nor  step  around  the  difficulties,  absurdities,  and  con- 
tradictions into  which  they  have  immersed  themselves^ 
in  their  theological  embarrassments.  I  do  not  recol- 
lect to  have  ever  heard  an  argument  in  favor  of  infant 
sprinkling,  but  what  directly  contradicted  the  bible, 
or  some  item  of  the  man's  creed  who  offered  it.  Mr. 
Terrell,  to  prove  the  identitif  of  the  Jewish  and  Christ- 
ian churches,  said  ;  they  are  one  and  the  same,  because 
they  both  have  the  same  name.  This  argument,  which 
he  seems  to  have  borrowed  from  Mr.  Mc'Cealla,  is  a 
strange  thing  under  the  sun.  Two  men  are  on<z  and 
the  same  man,  because  they  are  both  called  John  or 
James  ! !  A  man  and  a  monkey  are  one  and  the  same^ 
because  they  are  both  called  creatures  of  God  !  If  all 
his  arguments  for  idcntitt/  are  as  strong  as  this,  he  will 
certainly  convince  his  Methodist  friends,  that  the  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  church  are  one  and  the  same  church. 

But,  before  he  had  fairly  finished  this  argument  for 
identity,  he  told  us  that  the  Christian  church  was  to 
have  a  new  name — it  was  to  be  called  by  the  Christian 
name.  Then,  I  suppose,  the  two  are  one  and  the  same, 
because  they  have  the  same  name  ;  and  then  again, 
they  are  one  and  the  same,  because  they  have  not  the 
same  name  !     Mr.  Terrell  is  a  profound  thinker. 

This  is  in  good  keeping  with  another  argument  of 
his  party.  To  get  rid  of  the  difficulty,  that  Chri.st  did 
not  command  the  apostles  to  baptize  infants,  they  teli 
us,  that  it  was  not  necessary  that  he  should  ,  for  the 
Jews  baptized  Proselytes  and  their  children  from  the 
days  of  Moses,  to  the  days  of  Christ;  and  that  Christ- 
ian baptism  is  nothing  more  than  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism  continued.  But,  when  we  call  upon  them  for 
ihe  authority  they  have  for  baptizing  infants,  they  tell 
us,  that  the  Gospel  covenant  anciently  required  chil- 


^  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

dren  to  be  circumcised,  and  that  baptism  has  come  in 
the  place  of  circumcision — for  "baptism  is  the  same  scaf 
in  another  form."  It  is  certainly  very  interesting  to 
know,  that  baptism  and  circumcision  existed  together 
from  the  days  of  Moses,  to  the  days  of  Christ;  and  yet, 
that  baptism  did  not  exist  till  it  was  called  into  exist- 
ence to  fill  the  place  of  circumcision  which  was  done 
away.  If  I  were  the  advocate  of  such  a  theory,  I  wouht 
abandon  the  lame  theology  of  my  party,  embrace, 
obey,  and  preach  the  truth. 

The  Abrahamic  covenant,  he  says,  is  the  Gospel  cov- 
enant. 'I'hat  is,  as  I  understand  liim,  the  covenant 
which  the  Almighty  made  with  Abraham,  is  the  same 
that  he  makes  with  every  Christian.  Does  he  mean 
ffie  covenant  concerning  Christ?  the  covenant  con- 
cerning the  land  of  Canaan?  or  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision ?  It  cannot  be  the  covenant  concerning 
Christ,  for  the  following  reasons: 

1.  That  covenant  promised  to  the  person  with  whom 
it  was  made,  to  make  of  him  '■^  a  r^reat  nation P  This  is 
not  promised  to  every  Christian. 

2.  It  promised  to  the  person  with  whom  it  was  made. 
'' io  xn^liG  hi's  name  great."'  This  is  not  true  of  every 
Cliristian. 

3.  It  promised  to  the  person  with  whom  it  was  made. 
"  that  his  seel  should  be  as  numertjus  as  the  stars  of 
heaven,  and  the  sand  upon  the  sea  shore."  This 
promise  is  not  made  to  every  Christian,  as  we  all 
know. 

4.  It  promised  to  the  person  with  whom  it  was  made. 
that,  "  In  the  shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be  blessed." 
Mr.  Terrell  cannot  say,  that  this  promise  is  made  to 
him,  or  any  other  man  of  his  party. 

God  covenanted  with  Abraham  to  bless  the  nations 
In  him,  but  not  with  us  to  bless  the  nations  in  vs.  Sov 
does  the",  fact  that  we  are  benefitted  by  this  covenant 
prove  that  it  was  made  with  us,  more  than  does  the 
fact  that  a  child  is  benefitted  by  a  contract,  made  by  iu 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  91 

father  betore  it  was  born,  proves  that  the  child  made 
ihe  contract.  There  are  thousands  of  things  done  in 
this  world,  by  which  we  are  benefitted,  that  we  had 
on  hand  in  doing.  Wc  are  benefitted  by  the  death  ot" 
Christ,  but  we  did  not  crucify  him.  We  are  benefitted 
by  the  writings  of  Paul,  but  we  did  not  write  for  hiui. 
We  are  benefitted  by  having  the  scriptures  translated 
into  our  own  language,  but  we  did  not  translate  them. 

This  covenant  is  nothing  more  than  a  promise  made 

to  x\braham,  that  of  his  posterity  one  should  be  born  in 

whom  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed.    This 

covenant  was  made  when  Abraham  was  "  .5  venty  an  I 

Jive  yesivs  of  age.*' 

x\bout  eleven  or  twelve  years  after  this,  the  Lord 
appeared  to  him  again,  and  Moses  says,  "  The  same 
day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham,  saying, 
\u\{o  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land  from  the  river  of 
l^gypt  unto  the  great  river,  the  river  Euphrates." 

L  This  cannot  be  the  Gospel  covenant,  because  it 
was  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  not  according 
to  the  Sijirit,  but  according  to  the  Jlesh. 

2.  Because  the  Gospel  covenant  does  not  promise  to 
us  Christians  the  land  lying  between  these  two  rivers. 
^.  Because  we  have  offered  to  us  in  the  new,  and 
^everlasting  covenant,  not  an  earthly,  but  a  heavenly 
inheritance.  '•  We  look  for  a  city  which  hath  founda- 
tion, whose  builder  and  maker  is  God." 

The  covenant  of  circumcision  which  Mr.  Terrell  has 
strangely  enough  asserted  is  the  Christian  covenant, 
was  made  tw^elve  years  after  the  one  concerning  the 
land  of  Canaan,  and  twentjj-four  years  after  the  one 
concerning  CI>rist ;  for  Abraham  was  ninely  and  nine 
years  of  age,  when  the  Lord  "  gave  him  the  covenant 
of  circumcision."  It  cannot  be  the  Christian  covenant 
for  the  following  reasons: 

1 .  Males  only  were  required  to  obey  it — •'  Every 
man-child  among  you  shall  circumcised."  But,  fe- 
males, as  well  as  males  are  required  to  obey  the  Christ- 


^2  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

ian  covenant;  for  "In  Christ  Jesus  there  is  neither 
male  nor  female  ;  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ.  And  if 
ye  be  Christ's  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heir5> 
according  to  the  promise." 

2.  The  covenant  of  circumcision,  was  a  covenant 
'hi  the  flesh — "  My  covenant  shall  be  m  your  jlesh.'''' — 
The  Christian  covenant  is  not  in  the  flesh,  but  in  the 
Spirit.  I  defy  Mr.  Terrell  or  any  other  man  of  his 
party  to  show,  that  the  new  covenant  is  nov/,  or  ever 
was  a  covenant  in  the  Jlesh. 

3.  The  covenant  of  circumcision  required  every  man- 
child  to  be  circumcised,  and  he  who  was  not  circum- 
cised, was  to  be  "  cut  off  from  his  people."  But  the 
neio  forbids  any  man  to  be  circumcised — "  If  any  man 
among  you  shall  be  circumcised,  he  will  fall  from 
grace,  and  Christ  shall  profit  him  nothing." 

4.  That  covenant  required  Abraham  to  circumcise 
all  that  were  born  in  his  house,  or  bought  with  his  mo- 
ney. But  the  new  is  not  founded  upon  flesh  nor  property. 
but  upon  faith.  "  They  that  be  of  faith,  are  blessed 
with  faithful  Abraham." 

Now,  I  assert  that  Mr.  Terrell  will  not  dare  to  af- 
afiirm,  that  the  new  covenant  is  a  covenant  in  the 
flesh.  By  what  authority  then  does  he  say,  that  tjje 
covenant  of  circumcision  is  the  Christian  covenant? 

1  will  now  proceed  to  show  you,  and  I  hope  to  suc- 
ceed in  showing  Mr.  Terrell,  that  neither  the  one  nor 
the  other  of  these  can  be  the  new  and  everlasting  cov- 
enant which  the  good  Lord  makes  with  Abraham's 
children  according  the  Spirit. 

Something  lil^e  a  thousand  or  twelve  hundred  years 
after  all  these  covenants  were  made  with  Abraham, 
the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  speaking  by  the  Prophet  Jere- 
miah, said  : 

"  Behold  the  day  comes,  saith  the  Lord,  when  I  ?/;/// 
makc''^  (not  have  made)  "  a  new  covenant  with  the 
house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Juclah."  But 
Mr.  Terrell  says,  That  cannot  be  true  ;  for  all  the  eov- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  93 

^2nants  that  the  Lord  ever  made  with  the  house  of  Is- 
rael, he  made  more  than  a  thousand  years  before  the 
days  of  Jeremiah:-  for  "  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
is  the  Christian  covenant." 

The  same  Spirit,  speaking  by  the  prophet  Isaiah, 
said  :  "  IncHne  your  ear  and  come  unto  me :  hear, 
and  your  soul  shall  live ;  and  I  vAll  make  (not  have 
made)  "  an  everlasting  covenant  with  you."  But  Mr. 
Terrell  says,  that  cannot  be  true ;  for  the  new  and 
everlasting  covenant  was  made  more  than  a  thousand 
years  before  Isaiah  lived — "  The  covenant  of  circum- 
cision is  the  Christian  covenant." 

But  with  whom  does  the  Lord  promise  to  make  this 
everlasting  covenant  ?  With  such,  and  such  only,  as 
incline  their  ears  and  come  to  him ;  and  //ear,  that  their 
souls  may  live.  Mr.  Terrell,  however,  says,  that  can- 
not be  true;  for  infants  can  enter  into  the  new  cov- 
enant by  baptism,  with  inclining  their  ears,  coming  to 
God,  or  hearing  that  their  souls  may  live.  Which  shall 
we  believe,  Mr.  Terrell,  or  the  bible? 

Paul  says :  '•  But  now  hath  he  (Christ)  obtained  a 
more  excellent  ministry,  by  how  much  also  he  is  the 
mediator  of  a  hf  iter  covenant,  which  was  established 
upon  bdto'  promises."  But  Mr.  Terrell,  presuming,  I 
suppose,  to  understand  the  matter  better  than  Paul, 
says  :  There  is  no  belter  covenant,  established  upon  bet- 
ter promises  ;  for  it  is  the  same  old  covenant  of  circum- 
cision, made  with  Abraham. 

Paul  says :  "  For  if  that  Jirst  covenant  had  been 
faultless,  then  should  no  place  have  been  sought  for 
the  second.'''  Mr.  Terrell  has  discovered,  what  Paul 
did  not  know,  that  the  Jlrst  covenant  was  faultless. 
and  that  there  is  no  second.  Poor  Paul,  how  little  you 
knew  about  the  covenants,  when  compared  with  the 
wandering  circuitcers  of  the  Methodist  fraternity  ! !  Paul 
ought  to  have  attended  one  Methodist  conference  be- 
fore he  died,  that  he  might  have  been  possessed  of  all 
wisdom,  and  of  all  knowledge  ! 


94  '  DEBATE  OK  BAPTISM 

In  Speaking  of  the  second  or  better  covenant  whicfj 
%vas  established  upon  better  promises,  Pauls  says,  it 
shall  be  "Not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I  made 
with  their  fathers."  Mr.  Terrell  says,  it  is  according 
to  the  covenant  that  he  made  with  their  fathers ;  for  it 
is  the  same  old  covenant  of  circumcision. 

We  have  now  seen  that  it  is  a  second  and  better 
covenant,  established  upon  better  promises,  and  that 
it  is  not  according  to  the  old  ;  but  we  have  not  seen 
what  it  is.     Well,  the  apostle  proceeds  now  to  tell  us  : 

"  This  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  housr 
of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the  Lord."  Well, 
what  is  it?  Is  it,  that  "in  thee  shall  all  the  nation> 
of  the  earth  be  blessed"?  Is  it,  that  "  I  will  give  you 
this  land  from  the  river  of  Egypt  to  the  great  river,  the 
river  of  Euphrates"?  Is  it,  that  "every  man-child 
among  you  shall  be  circumcised"?  It  is,  according  to 
Mr.  Terrell,  but  we  all  know  better.  Well,  what  is  it 
then  ?  \Vhy,  "  I  will  put  my  laws  in  their  minds,  and 
write  them  in  their  hearts;  and  I  will  be  to  them  a 
God,  and  they  shall  be  to  me  a  people  :  and  they  shall 
no  more  teach  every  man  his  neighbor,  and  every  man 
his  brother,  saying,  know  the  Lord  ;  for  all  shall  know 
me,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest.  For  I  will  be  mer- 
ciful to  their  unrighteousness,  and  their  sins  and  their 
iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more." 

Here  is  the  covenant  that  God  makes  with  us,  and 
it  is  neither  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  nor  the  cov 
enant  concerning  the  land  of  Canaan.  Here  let  us 
pause  and  note  some  of  the  difterences  between  the 
new  and  the  old,  the  better  and  the  worse,  the  first  and 
the  last  covenants,  of  which  the  apostle  spcak-j. 

1.  And  the  first  is:  The  new  covenant  is  Z^t^//^? ,  and 
established  upon  better  promises  than  the  old. 

2.  The  old  had  favJls,  but  the  new  is  Ja'i't  ess. 

3.  The  new  is  said  to  be  not  accord m:^-  to  the  old.-- 
It  is  wholly  unlike  it. 

4.  The  old  was  written  upon  two  tables  ofstooe. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  9$ 

but  the  new  is  written  upon  the  minds  and  hearts 
of  God's  believing  children. 

5.  Into  the  old  covenant  children  entered  by  natural 
birth  ;  and  if  they  ever  knew  the  Lord,  they  had  to  be 
taught  to  know  him  after  they  entered  into  it.  But  we 
enter  into  the  new  by  spiritual  birth,  and  consequently 
we  are  "  no  more  to  U-aW''  (in  the  new  covenant  as  they 
did  in  the  old)  "  every  man  his  neighbor,  and  every 
man  his  brother,  saying,  know  the  Lord  ;  for  all"  (that 
are  in  the  covenant)  "  shall  know  me,  from  the  least 
to  the  greatest."  "  Incine  your  ear  and  come  unto  me; 
hear,  and  your  soul  shall  live,"  first,  and  then,  "  I  will 
make  an  everlasting  covenant  with  you."  So  we  see 
they  are  taught  to  know  the  Lord  before  they  enter 
the  covenant ;  and  consequently  have  no  need  of  be- 
ing taught  to  know  him  alter  thpy  are  in.     Mr.  Terrell 

-knou's  that  this  language  was  designed  to  cut  off  his 
infant  membership,  and  his  infant  sprinkling,  and  this 
is  the  reason  why  he  wants  to  take  us  back  to  circum- 
cision. It  will  not  do  ;  for  the  \'eYy  ka^t  one  in  the 
Christian  covenant  is  to  know  the  Lord.  Now,  before 
hs  asserts  again  that  infants  are  in  the  Christian 
covenant,  let  him  show  in  what  sen.se  these  least  ones, 
that  he  sprinkles  into  his  Methodist  covenant,  can 
know  the  Lord. 

6.  In  the  old  covenant,  '*  he  who  transgressed  the 
law  died  without  mercy ;^-  but  in  the  new,  the  j^ord  says» 
''1  will  be  merciful  to  their  unrighteou:^ness." 

7.  In  the  old  there  was  a  "  remembrance  made  again 
of  sins  every  year;"  and  consequently  the  members  of 
the  Jewish  church  had  to  make  offerings  again  and 
again  for  the  sam^  sins.  But  when  the  conscience  is 
purged  from  gilt,  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  llie  great  sin 
offering,  and  the  body  washed  in  pure  water,  in  obe- 
dience to  the  Lord  Jesus,  the  mediator  of  the  new  and 
better  covenant,  the  Almighty  says:  '•  Their  sins  and 
their  iniquities  will  I  remember  no  more.''' 

Now,  1  wish  it  to  be  remembered, 


96  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

1.  That  all  tliat  are  in  the  new  covenant  know  the 
Lord,  from  the  least  to  the  great. 

2.  That  every  one  in  the  new  covenant  was  an  un- 
righteous person,  before  he  entered  into  it — "  1  will  he 
merciful  to  their  unrighteousness."  This  language 
cannot  be  applied  to  infants,  for  they  are  not  un- 
righteous. 

3.  That  they  were  all  sinners,  and  guilty  of  doing 
iniquity  before  they  entered  into  the  covenant — "  And 
their  sins^^  (not  sin)  "  and  their  iniquities''^  (not  the  in- 
iquity of  Adam)  will  I  remember  no  more."  This 
shows  too,  that  they  were  all  pardoned  persons.  Now, 
is  there  a  man  in  this  house  who  does  not  see,  that 
this  language  cannot  be  applied  to  infants  who  have 
never  been  guilty  of  one  sin  of  their  own.  Now,  if  it  is 
true  that  «//  who  are  in  the  new  covenant  hiow  the 
Lord,  that  they  had  all  been  sinners,  that  they  had  all 
been  unrighteous,  and  that  they  had  all  received  a  free 
pardon  of  all  their  own  sin^;  does  it  not  fellow,  that  in- 
fants were  not  among  the  number,  and  that  Mr.  Ter- 
rell's notion  of  infant  membership  is  wholly  outside  of 
the  Bible.  Let  him  come  to  the  New  Testament  and 
prove  in  his  next  speech,  if  he  can,  that  Christ  com- 
manded, and  the  apostles  practised  infant  baptism. 

(Time  expired.) 

[mr.  Terrell's  2d  address — >Jd  prop.] 
j\ly  Christian  friends: 

I  thank  Mr.  Pritchard  for  his  allusion  to  my  strength. 
It  is  very  good  to  have  strength,  as  he  will  learn  before 
we  get  through.  1  expect  to  make  my  cau.se  appear 
Stronger  than  the  physical  strength  of  him  who  advo- 
cates it.  He  also  spoke  of  my  notes  not  being  in 
my  own  hand  write.  I  would  inform  the  geft- 
lleman  that  1  can  do  my  own  writing.  If  I  am  not 
mistaken  he  can  testify  at  least,  that  I  can  make  wij 
mark..  He  smiles  and  winks  as  if  he  expected  to  brow- 
beat me  out  of  my  arguments. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  97 

[Here  the  president  moderator  said  that  was  not  rel- 
evant.    Mr.  Terrell  proceeded.] 

Mr.  Pritchard  accused  not  only  me,  but  my  brethren 
also,  of  believing  in  infant  damnation.  He  represe»- 
ted  us  as  believing  in  the  damnation  of  all  unbaptized 
infants.  This  I  deny,  as  a  most  ungrounded  misrepre- 
sentation; and  I  call  upon  him  for  the  proof.  Let  him 
prove  it  if  he  can. 

He  tells  us  of  three  covenants  fspoken  of  in  the  r2th, 
loth  and  17th  chapters  of  Genesis.  In  tliis  he  has  ta- 
ken the  same  course  Mr.  Campbell  did,  and  followed 
out  that  course  almo.st  to  the  letter.  In  doing  this  he 
has  attelnpted  to  make  three  promises,  all  relating  to 
the  land  of  Canaan.  But  this  I  deny.  1  admit  there 
were  many  temporal  promises  made  in  the  covenant. 
AH  these  promises  in  the  one  covenant  were  tyipcal. 
There  was  but  one  land  promised  in  the  covenant,  and 
that  earthly  land  had  reference  to  a  heavenly  land; 
hence  Canaan  was  typical  of  a  better  country.  Do 
the  stars  of  heaven  refer  to  the  earihly  Canaan.  It  is 
Mr.  Pritchard  that  confounds  law  and  Gospel,  and  not 
me. 

I  know  that  m  Hebrews  8:  6, 10,  Paul  speaks  of  two 
covenants,  but  this  is  the  last  chapter  iVom  which  he 
should  have  quoted.  The  old  covenant  here  referred 
to,  means  the  old  covenant,  where  God  took  the  Isra- 
elites by  the  hand  to  lead  them  up  out  of  Egypt.  It 
has  no  reference  to  rescinding  the  law  of  jMoses. 
House  of  Israel  means  the  family  of  Israel;  and  I  know 
it  does  not  mean  the  church,  as  my  friend  says.  It 
means  house,  or  household.  1  will  make  a  new  cove- 
nant with  Abraham's  household,  or  family. 

The  gentleman  quotes  the  words  of  the  prophet;  "all 
shall  know  me,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest."  I  un- 
derstand this  to  be  coming  into  covenant  relation  with 
God — into  the  church.  Mr.  Pritchard  contends  that  all 
their  sins  are  forgiven  in  baptism;  but  the  passage  sa>K 
*' their  sins  and   their  iniquities  will   I  remember   r.o 

G 


93.        ^  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

more."     This  passage  teaches  all,  from  the  least  to  tl,.^- 
grealest  shall  know  the  Lord — that  is  ihey  shall  come 
into  the  church;  yet  the  gentlennan  would   keep  them 
out.     I  do  not  prostrate  the  plaUi^f  pardon  as  the  gen- 
tleman accused  me. 

He  speaks  of  the  sins  of  babies,  and  questions  me  ir. 
regard  to  them.  But  I  would  say  in  the  words  of  ait 
apostle  "as  all  have  sinned,  all  are  condemned;"  bu' 
we  baptize  infants  because  their  sins  have  been  par- 
doned, and  not  that  they  may  be.  We  baptize  then: 
because  they  are  in  the  covenant,  and  not  to  puttheni 
into  it.  Baptism  is  a  tok:m,  or  mark,  which  all  are  en- 
titled to  who  are  in  the  covenant;  and  as  inftmts  havf: 
heen  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  they  are  enti- 
tled to  this  seal.  We  thus  give  them  the  seal  to  indue: 
them  into  the  church,  in  view  of  religious  instruction, 
and  not  to  save  them  from  eternal  damnation,  as  thif. 
gentleman  has  falsely  represented  our  church.  The 
gentleman  need  not  smile  and  wink  then,  as  though  he 
intended  or  expected  to  brow-beat  me  in  this  discus- 
sion, and  thus  get  me  off  from  the  question,  if  thoC 
is  his  intention  he  has  got  the  wrong  man. 

it  the  covenant  was  not  confirmed  by  circumcisiot^. 
let  the  gentleman  tell  what  it  was  confirmed  by.  This 
is  made  clear  by  Romans  4th  chapter  and  I4th  verse, 
in  the  following  words:  for  if  they  which  are  of  the 
law  by  heirs,  faith  is  Rriade  void,  and  the  promise  made 
of  none  effect;  because  the  lav/  worketh  wrath;  for 
uhere  no  law  is,  there  is  no  transgression.  Therefor'^ 
it  is  of  faith,  that  it  mighS  be  by  grace,  to  the  end  tlu 
promise  might  be  sure  to  a.11  the  seed,  not  to  that  onl> 
v/hich  is  ol  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which  is  of  the  faith 
of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  ail,  (as  is  within,  I 
have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  nations.)  before  hin^ 
whom  he  believed,  even  God,  who  quickeneth  thr, 
dead,  and  calleth  those  things  which  be  not  as  though, 
they  were." 

Again  we  read  in  the  3d  chapter  and  29th  verse  .>: 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  99 

Gallatians,  where  it  is  said,  "And  if  ye  be  Christ's, 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according, 
to  the  promise."  Yeslshmael  andEson  were  included 
in  the  covenant,  though  they  participated  not  in  the 
temporal  promises;  yet  they  were  embraced,  as  I  have 
shown  in  the  spiritual  promises. 

But  the  gentleman  thinks  I  follow  Mr.  McCalla. — 
Well,  it  is  not  very  strange  if  I  should!  I  suppose  that 
the  course  of  any  intelligent  preacher  of  my  views 
would  pursue;  would  bethe  course  mainlythey  all  would 
pursue;  but  I  would  inform  the  gentleman  that  although 
I  havehadMr.  Campbell's  andMr.  McCalla's  debatelying 
in  my  house  for  some  months,  that  I  have  not  read  ten 
pages  in  it.  Therefore  if  I  follow  the  course  pursued 
by  Mr.  McCalla,  it  is  only  because  I  agree  with  him, 
and  rely  upon  the* same  evidences  he  did,  and  come  to 
the  same  conclusions. 

Upon  anti-pedo-baptist  principles,  the  time  will  never 
come  when  all  shall  know  the  Lord,  for  they  exclude 
infants  from  the  church  or  from  being  recognized  as 
knowing  the  Lord,  and  con.sequently  as  long  as  there 
are  infants  there  will  be  of  those  who  do  not  know  the 
Lord.  Upon  the  gentleman's  principles  then,  the  time 
will  never  come  when  all  will  know  the  Lord.  But  the 
true  state  of  the  case  is,  all  in  the  church  are  recognized 
as  knowing  the  Lord,  and  the  prophet  looked  forward 
to  the  time  when  the  church  should  be  universal,  when 
all  should  know  the  Lord  from  the  least  to  the  greatest. 
This  will  include  all,  both  infants  and!adults;in  the  place 
of  being  an  argument  against  me,  furnishes  a  strong 
argument  in  my  favor.  When  that  prophec^y  shall  be 
fulfilled  alli\om  the  hast  to  the  gj-ca test,  shall  know  the 
Lord. 

Mr.  Pritchard  remarks  that  all  entered  the  old  church 
by  a  natural  birth,  and  therefore  all  infants  were  in  the 
church.  Well,  we  baptize  them  because  they  are  al- 
ready in  the  kingdom,  and  not  to  take  them  into  the 
kingdom.     The  gentleman  ha?  become  so  accustome'l 


100  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

fio  talking  about  baptizing  into  the  kingdom  that  he 
keeps  on  in  the  same  strain  when  he  talks  for  me,  but 
I  wish  him  to  remember,  that  we  do  not  baptize  persons 
hito  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  merely  into  our  branch  of 
The  visible  church.  Let  him  remember  this,  and  he  will 
have  enough  to  do  without  browbeating  me.  He  need 
not  think  to  get  me  off  from  the  point  by  laughing, 
winking  and  nodding.  Such  deportment  may  suit  his 
views  and  his  cause 

[Here  the  president  moderator  said,  I  shall  have  to 
call  you  to  order  Mr.  Terrell.] 

Mr.  Terrell  said  1  think  I  am  as  near  in  order  as  Mr. 
Pritchard  was  in  his  last  speech. 

[President  moderator  said,  That  is  true.  You  werr 
both  out  of  order.  Our  being  wrong  yesterday,  is  no 
"  eason  w^hy  we  should  continue  wrong  to-day.  Mr, 
Terrell  proceeded.] 

The  gentleman  confounds  the  making  and  the  con- 
firming of  the  covenants.  He  makes  one  covenant  at 
:he  making  of  the  covenant,  and  another  at  the  confir- 
mation of  the  covenant.  This  1  will  now  show  by  rea- 
fiing  Genesis  17,  beginning  verse  2:  ''And  I  will  make 
my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  will  multiply 
Lhee  exceedingly.  And  Abraham  fell  on  his  face  and 
God  talked  with  him,  saying.  As  for  me  behold  my  cov- 
enant is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  n?any 
nations.  Neither  shalt  thy  name  any  more  be  called 
Abram,  but  thy  name  shall  be  Abraham;  for  a  father 
of  many  nations  have  I  made  thee.  And  I  will  make 
thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I  wilt  make  nations  of  thee 
and  kings  shall  come  out  of  thee.  And  I  will  establis/i 
my  covenant  between  me  and  thee  and  thy  seed  aftc^f 
thee  in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant, 
to  be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee.  And  1 
will  give  unto  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land 
wherein  thou  art  a  stranger,  aJJ  the  land  of  Caanan  for 
an  everlasting  possession;  and  I  will  be  their  God.  And 
God  said  unto  Abraham, Thou  sbaltkeep  my  covenaTit. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  101 

thou,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations.  This 
is  my  covenant  which  ye  shall  keep,  between  me  and 
thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee;  every  man-child  shall  bi^ 
circumcised.  And  ye  shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your 
foreskin;  and  itshall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  between 
me  and  you.  And  he  that  is  eight  days  old  shall  be 
circumcised  among  you,  and  every  man-child  in  your 
generations;  he  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  or  bought 
with  thy  money  from  any  stranger,  which  is  not  of  thy 
seed.  He  that  is  born  in  thy  house  and  he  that  is 
bought  with  thy  money  must  needs  be  circumcised;  and 
my  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh  for  an  everlasting 
covenant.  And  the  uncircumcised  man-child,  whose 
flesh  of  his  foreskin  is  not  circumcised,  that  soul  shaH 
be  cut  off  from  his  people;  he  hath  broken  my  cove- 
nant."' This  relates  to  the  gospel  covenant  clearly,  for 
it  is  mentioned,  Gen.  14,  Gen.  16,  and  Gen.  17,  the  lat- 
ter of  which  1  have  now  read  at  full  length.  Is  it  not 
clear  that  he  speaks  of  the  same  covenant  all  the  time; 
and  is  it  not  equally  plain  that  it  is  the  gospel  cove- 
nant? I  affirm  that  it  is,  and  all  the  distinctions  the 
gentleman  ever  can  make,  by  referring  to  different  pla- 
ces where  the  covenant  is  spoken  of,  can  never  make 
it  mean  any  thing  else.  Again,  Gal.  3:  29,  we  are. 
informed  that  "if  we  be  Christ's  then  are  we  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  accbi-ding  to  the  promise."  Thus  you 
will  discover,  we  are  constituted  Abraham's  seed,  and 
as  baptism  comes  in  the  room  of  circumcision,  we  are 
required  to  have  our  children  baptized. 

The  gentleman  says,  I  contradicted  myself  about  the 
new  name;  but  he  is  only  in  a  mistake  about  that  mat- 
ter. The  fact  that  the  clmrch  was  to  have  a  new  name, 
is  very  clear  evidence  of  the  continuation  of  the  same 
church. 

I  have  now  shown  that  when  the  gospel  covenant 
was  first  made  with  Abraham  that  it  included  infants. 
God  put  them  in  the  church  by  a  positive  law,  and  1  ar- 
gue that  they  cannot  be  put  out  only  by  a  positive  law; 


A  02  DEBATE  ON  BAPTlSiM 

and  the  gentleman  has  shown  no  such  law,  and  1  pre- 
'iume  he  will  not  show  any  such  law. 

I  have  also  shown  that  the  same  church  organized  in 
Abraham's  day  was  to  continue  while  time  itself  should 
'Continue,  and  that  infants  were  in  it.  in  that  day  and 
that  they  cannot  be  excluded  without  positive  law. — 
Mas  he  ever  shown  where  they  were  excluded?  Sure- 
ly he  has  not,  and  equally  sure  it  is  thatiie  cannot. 

My  christian  friends,  it  was  the  intention  of  God, 
that  you  should  give  your  children  up  to  the  Lord,  in 
baptism,  and  that  you  should  bring  them  up  in  the  nur- 
ture and  admonitions  of  the  Lord.  Mr.  Pritchard  has 
by  no  means  convinced  me  that  my  children  are  exclu- 
ded from  this  privilege;  nor  do  I  believe  he  has  suc- 
ceeded in  convincing  this  audience,  that  their  children 
are  to  be  suffered  to  grow  up  in  infidelity. 

I  see  that  my  time  has  almost  expired,  and  I  must 
bring  my  remarks  to  a  close,  and  hear  what  my  friend 
<*an  say  to  these  arguments.  I  hope  he  will  come  up 
to  the  point  and  meet  the  question  fairly,  and  make  the 
best  elFort  he  is  able  to. 

MR.  pritchard's  second  reply. 
Gentlemen  Moderators — 

Mr.  Terrell  commenced  his  last  address  by  inform- 
iitg  you,  than  he  expected  to  make  his  cause  stronger 
than  the  physical  strength  of  him  who  advocates  it. — 
Well,  if  he  does,  I  shall  be  mistaken.  It,  to  me,  re- 
jsembles  more  the  "  lean  kinc'^  of  Pharaoh,  than  the 
hearty  and  healthy  appearance  of  my  friend  Mr. 
Terrell. 

Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  looked  for  heaven,  he 
says,  and  therefore,  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was 
the  Gospel  covenant.  U  he  w^ished  to  make  his  argu- 
ment complete,  and  put  it  beyond  the  reach  of  a  reply, 
why  did  he  not  say,  "  Of  the  Jews  five  times  Paul  re- 
ceived forty  stnpf^s  save  one  ;"  and  therefore,  the  cove- 
nant of  circumcision  was  the  Gospel  covenant  ? 


AND  tHE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  103 

Feeling  liimself  unable  to  reply  to  my  argument 
rom  the  8th  chap,  of  Hebrews,  and  knowing  that  it 
ibrever  puts  an  end  to  the  question,  whether  infants 
are  members  of  the  7?/??/?  covenant,  or  of  the  Christian 
hurch,  he  tells  you  that  the  covenant  of  which  the 
apostle  speaks  is  not  yd  inade,  and  will  not  be,  till  the 
world  shall  be  converted  and  brought  into  the  church. 
This  ridiculous  and  unscriptural  notion,  so  common 
amons:  the  advocates  of  Millcrism  and  infant  sprink- 
ling, has  been  answered  and  refuted  a  thousand  and 
one  times  by  the  advocates  of  truth.  In  the  sixth 
verse.  Paul  says  :  "  But  now^^  (not  ?/'///,  when  all  the 
world  shall  be  converted  and  brought  into  the  church) 
•but  now  hath  lie  obtained  a  more  excellent  ministry, 
oy  how  much  also  he  is  (not  will  be,  but  is)  the  media- 
tor of  a  Letter  covenant,  which  i^«.v"  (not  will  be,  but 
u-as)  '•  established  upon  better  promises." 

In  the  last  verse  of  the  8th  chap,  of  Ileb.  the  apostle 
■says  the  old  covenant  had  "  decayed,  icaxed  old,  and  was 
readif  to  vanish  away  "  If  it  had  decayed^  and  was  ?  eady 
to  vanish  away  in  the  days  of  Paul,  it  is  certainly  gone 
before  this.  Now,  suppose  we  admit,  for  argument 
sake,  that  Paul  was  right  in  saying  the  old  covenant 
had  vanished  away;  and  that  Mr.  Terrell  is  right  in 
saying  tliat  the  new  is  not  yet  made;  and  what  fol- 
low^s?  Why,  if  the  old  is  gone,  and  the  new  not  made, 
it  w-ill  follow,  that  we  are  without  any  covenant  with 
^Tod;  and  consequently  without  God,  and  without 
hope  in  the  world.  Mr.  Terrell  and  his  party  \vould 
not  only  damn  unbaptized  infants,  but  all  the  rest  of 
us.  for  the  sake  of  their  infant  membership. 

By  the  way,  Mr.  Terrell  told  you,  that  I  misrepre- 
sented him  and  his  brethren,  by  saying  they  are  be- 
lievers in  infant  damnation.  Mr.  Terrell  himself  de- 
clared this  morning,  in  the  presence  of  you  all,  that 
unbaptized  infants  are  out  of  the  church,  without  any 
provision  for  their  et<'rnal  loell-hnns:;  so  he  believes  it, 
and  I  will  now  prove  that  his  brethren  believe  the 


104  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

same  thing.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  book  called  "  Doc- 
trinal Tracts,"  published  in  1836,  for  the  M.  E.  Church, 
"  by  order  of  the  General  Conference.*'  This  book  it* 
intended  to  "  explain  severalimportant  points  of  scriptural 
doctrine f^  so,  of  course,  whatever  it  contains,  we  are  to 
regard  as  an  explayuition  of  some  point  of  •'  scriptural 
doctrine."'  Well,  wiiat  does  it  say  about  the  "Scrip- 
tural doctrine"'  of  infant  damnation !  1  read  on 
page  251. 

"If  infants  are  guilty  of  original  sin,  then  they  are 
proper  subjects  of  baptism;  seeing,  in  the  ordinary 
way  they  cannot  he  saved,  unless  this''''  (original  sin)  '^be 
Wished  away  by  baptism.  It  has  been  already  proved, 
that  this  original  stain  cleaves  to  every  child  of  man  ; 
and  that  hereby  they  are  "  children  of  wrath,  and  liable? 
to  eternal  damnation  .^^ 

On  page  247,  I  find  the  following : 

"  It  is  certain,  by  God's  word,  that  children  who  are 
baptized,  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  saved.''' 

Now,  from  these  two  passages  w^e  learn  the  follow- 
ing facts,  in  relation  to  this  "  Scripture  doctrine"  of  the 
General  Conference  :  1st.  That  all  infants  are  guilty 
of  original  sin,  and  "  cnniwl  he  samd  unless  this  be  wash- 
ed away  by  baptism."  2nd.  That  in  consequenc^e  of 
original  sin,  all  infants  are  ^^  children  of  wrath ^  and  lia- 
ble to  eternal  damnation.^''  3rd.  That  all  baptized  in 
fants,  who  ^^  die  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are 
saved.""  Now,  if  it  "  is  certain  that  baptized  infants 
are  saved,  and  that  unbaptized  infants  ^^  caimut  be 
saved ;'^  what  can  be  plainer  than  that  they  must  be 
damned  ? 

In  the  "Discipline  of  the  M.  E.  Church/'  \ve  have 
this  awful  notion  of  the  party  to  which  Mr.  Terrell  be- 
longs, equally  as  plainly  and  clearly  taught.  The 
minister,  (as  we  learn  from  page  J  03  and  104)  after 
exhorting  the  members  to  "call  upon  God,  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to  grant  to  this  chilrf^  (in  bap- 
tism) "Mrt^  thing  which  by  nature  he  cannot  have/* 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  105 

prays  for  "  that  thing''  himself,  in  the  following  man- 
ner :  "We  beseech  thee,  for  thine  infinite  mercies, 
that  thou  wilt  look  upon  this  child:  wash  him"  (from 
original  sin)  "  and  sanctify  him  with  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
that  he  being  delivcrei  from  thy  wrath,''  (a  minister  of 
Methodism  praying  to  the  Lord,  that  a  little  infant  may 
be  ''delivered  from  his  wrath."  May  the  good  Lord 
have  mercy  upon  such  ignorance)  '•  may  be  received 
into  the  arlv  of  Christ's  Church."     Again,  he  prays  : 

"  O  merciful  God,  grant  that  the  dd  Adam  in  this 
rhild  may  be  so  buried"  (in  baptism)  "  that  the  new 
man  may  be  raised  up  in  him.  Grant  that  all  carnal 
affections"  {carnal  aii'ections  in  a  little  infant)  "  may  die 
in  him,"  (what  a  powerful  thing  infant  sprinkling  is,  to 
kill  all  cai-nal  affections  in  a  neic-born  bate)  '•  and  that 
ail  things  belonging  to  the  Spirit  may  live  and  grow 
in  him.  Grant  that  he"  (the  little  infant)  "  may  have 
j)ower  and  strength  to  have  victory"  (so  without  bap- 
tism an  infant  cannot  have  victory)  "  and  to  triumjjk 
against  the  devil,  the  world,  and  the  flesh." 

Now,  my  Christian  friends,  if  any  one  should  ever 
ask  you  again  for  the  benefits  and  blessings  of  infant 
sprinkUng,  just  tell  him  that  the  "  Discipline  o[  our 
church"  says  :  "  It  washes  an  infant  from  original  sin, 
delivers  it  from  God's  ivra'h,  buries  the  old  Adam  in  ?7, 
kills  all  its  carnal  afiections,  gives  it  power  and  strength 
to  have  victory,  and  power  and  strength  to  triumph 
against  the  devil,  the  world,  and  the  Jlesh.  If  this  is  all 
true,  who  would  not  have  his  children  sprinkled,  and 
"  dedicaU.d  to  tlie  Lord  by  our  office  and  our  ministry.,  that 
they  may  receive  such  '  everlasting  rewards.'  " 

Mr,  Terrell  says,  it  is  not  true  that  there  were  three 
covenants  made  with  Abraham,  and  calls  upon  me,  af- 
ter I  have  done  it,  to  prove  that  there  were  more  than 
one.  Well,  as  Bro.  Campbell  said  to  Mr.  Rice,  "I  must 
tell  him  the  story  the  second  time.  Paul  to  the  Ro- 
mans, 9th  chap.,  says  :  '^  To  the  Israelites  pertain  the 
adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giv- 


106  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

ing  of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises;.'' 
There  was,  then,  besides  the  law  and  the  promises,  a 
plurality  of  covenants  given  to  Israel.  This  only  proves 
a  plurality  of  covenants.  And  to  lind  out  the'amount 
of  this  plurality,  I  go  to  the  history  of  the  Jews,  begin- 
ning, of  course,  w^ith  the  founder  of  the  religion,  or  the 
lather  of  the  faithful.  God  made  but  one  covenant 
with  all  Israel,  at  llearah,  therefore,  that  being  also 
named,  and  covimants  besides,  we  are  obliged  to  look 
for  a  history  of  those  transactions  in  the  Abrahamic 
family,  designated  by  that  name.  I  have,  then,  clearly 
distinguished  and  documented  with  proof  no  less  than 
three  covenants,  made  with  Abraham  ; — two  based  on 
the  first  promise,  and  one  on  the  second.  The  one  on 
the  second,  is  that  which  concerns  us,  because  Paul 
calls  it  "the  gospel,  in  its  origin,"  and  the  first  indica- 
tion of  Gentile  justification.  Galatians  iii.  8  :  This  is 
the  gospel  covenant,  called  by  the  sama  apostle  and  in 
the  same  epistle,  "  the  covenant  concerning  Chriat.^^ — 
The  covenant  is  made  out,  denominated,  and  even 
dated  by  the  same  apostle.  He  says  it  was  made  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  law — chap.  iii.  15. 
He  says — "  Brethren,  I  speak  after  the  manner  of  men  ; 
though  it  be  but  a  man's  covenant,  yet  if  it  be  corijirm- 
cl^  no  man  disannuleth,  or  addeth  thereto.  Now  to 
Abraham  and  his  seed  were  the  promises  made.  He 
saith  not.  And  to  seeds,  as  of  many;  but  as  of  one, 
even  to  thy  seed,  which  is  the  Christ.  Now  then,  I  say, 
that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God.  in 
Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  th^ 
promise  of  non-elfect.  Nothing  can  be  more  clearly 
expressed.  Here  is  a  covenant  named,  described, 
dated.  We  can  have  its  date  most  accurately  traced. 
Abraham  was  seventy-five  years  old  when  the  two 
promises  were  given  him  ;  one,  concerning  the  Messi- 
.•«h,  as  aforesaid — and  one,  concerning  his  family,  with 
a  reference  thereunto.     He  was  one  hundred  years 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  107 

ilcl  when  Isaac  was  born.  Isaac  was  sixty  when  Jacob 
vvas  born,  and  Jacob  told  Pharaoh,  when  he  went  down 
nto  Egypt  with  his  family,  that  he  was  one  hundred 
and  thirty  years  old.  Now  add  the  respective  sums 
of  25X  GOX  130-=215.  Now,  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  Chro- 
nology, arch-bishop  Vsher's  the  commonly  received 
chronology,  make  the  whole  sojourning  in  Egypt  215 
years,  which  two  sums  exactly  make  430  years,  from 
the  covenant  concerning  the  Messiah,  to  have  trans- 
pired before  the  giving  of  the  law,  as  Paul  expressly 
declares. 

We  have,  then,  one  covenant  indisputably  made  out 
and  dated.  We  shall  now  look  for  a  second.  This 
we  find  amply  delineated  in  the  15th  chapter  of  Gene- 
'^is,  about  ten,  or  twelve  years  at  most,  after  the  for- 
mer. This  covenant,  as  I  have  already  stated,  had 
respect  to  the  promised  inheritance.  It  was  made  to 
define,  and  secure  the  patrimony  of  the  sons  of  Abra- 
ham in  the  line  of  the  promised  seed.  While  confirm- 
ing it  over  sacrifice,  the  Lord  informed  the  patriarch, 
that  his  posterity  should  be  sojourners,  strangers  and 
oppressed,  for  four  hundred  years.  In  the  fourth  gen- 
eration they  shall  come  to  this  land  again,  for  the  cup 
of  the  Amorites  is  not  yet  full.  " //z  that  same  dai/,''^ 
says  Moses,  "  the  Lord  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham, 
saying,  Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land,  from  the 
river  of  Egypt  unto  the  great  river,  the  river  Euphra- 
tes." Can  any  language  more  definitely  designate  the 
making  of  a  covenant  on  a  certain  day  than  this? — 
Examine  Gen.  xv.  7,  21.  I  have  fixed  this  covenant  in 
the  8Gth  year  of  Abraham,  because  immediately  after 
it  we  are  informed  of  the  birth  of  Ishmael,  who  was 
thirteen  years  old  at  the  date  of  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, to  which  I  next  invite  your  attention. 

It  will  require  no  proof,  I  presume,  to  any  one  ac- 
quainted with  ancient  patriarchal  history,  that  the 
covenant  styled  by  Stephen,  "  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision," was  made  one  year  before  the  birth  of  Isaac, 


108  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

and  in  the  ninety-ninth  year  of  Abraham,  twenty  four  or 
twenty-five  years  after  the  '^  covenant  concerning 
Christ."  We  have  all  the  dates  given,  the  covenants 
detailed  in  the  17th  of  Genesis,  and  even  down  to- 
Acts  vii.  8,  denominated  as  follows :  "  And  he  gave 
him  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  and  then  Abraham 
begot  Isaac,  and  circumcised  him  the  eighth  day." — 
We  have,  then,  delineated  three  distinct  covenants 
made  with  Abraham  during  the  period  of  five  and 
twenty  years;  and  no  man  can  connect  these  three  in- 
to one  covenant.  The  parties  were  always  the  same, 
but  the  stipulations,  pledges,  seals,  objects,  and  datecs, 
are  just  as  different  as  any  three  transactions  ever 
made  between  one  and  the  same  two  persons. 

Mr.  Terrell  told  you,  that  I  agreed  with  him  that  bap* 
tism  is  the  act  by  wdiich  we  pass  into  the  church,  and 
into  the  gospel  covenant.  I  replied,  by  showing  that 
he,  in  this  ^'  agreement,"  refuted  his  notion  of  the  iden- 
tity of  the  two  churches,  and  of  the  two  covenants;  for 
it  is  manifestly  plain,  I  think,  to  every  one  who  has 
read  the  bible,  that  the  Jews  w^ere  not  baptized  m/othe 
Jewish  church  and  covenant.  Now,  if  it  is  true,  that 
they  entered  into  the  old  covenant  and  Jewish  church  by 
natural  birth^  and  that  we  cannot  enter  into  the  new  cov- 
enat  and  Christian  church,  but  by  baptism,  does  it  not 
follow,  that  the  two  churches,  and  the  two  covenants, 
are  not  idenlicaUy  the  same  ?  But  the  gentleman  dis- 
covering, in  his  last  speech,  the  difficulties  into  which 
he  had  plunged  himself  by  this  ''  agreement"  of  ours, 
told  you  that  he  does  not  baptize  children  to  bring  them 
into  the  church,  but  because  they  are  in  the  diurc'i.  In 
his  first  speech  this  morning,  '•  unbaptizcd  infants  were 
out  of  the  church,  without  any  provision  for  their  eter- 
nal well-being;"  and  I  agreed  with  him,  he  said,  that 
no  one  can  enter  into  the  church,  but  by  baptism. — 
But  now,  only  one  hour  afterwards,  he  tells  us,  that  he 
does  not  believe  one  word  ol  what  he  told  us  about 
this  "  agreement"  between  us  ;  for  he  does  not  baptize 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  WJ 

infants  into  the  church,  but  becaus^'  'they  are  in  the 
church  hy  natural  birth.  I  think  his  brethren  will  hardly 
thank  him  for  this  defence  of  their  Methodism ;  for  it 
is  know  to  Mr.  Terrell,  and  to  every  Methodist  in  this 
house,  that  he  has,  in  his  last  statement  of  his  faith,  re- 
nounced and  given  up  all  the  principles  of  his  party 
upon  the  subject  of  baptism.  Methodists  believe,  and 
have  always  taught,  that  by  baptism  we  "  enter  into 
covenant  with  God,"  into  the  Christian  church,  and  i«- 
to  heaven  hereafter.  Upon  this  point,  they  not  only 
''  agree"  with  us,  but  go  beyond  us,  and  are  able  at 
any  time  to  out  Campbell  even  Campbell  himself. — 
Hear  what  the  "  General  Conference"  has  published 
to  the  world,  as  the  principles  of  the  party,  in  "  Doc- 
trinal Tracts :" 

"  By  baptism  we  are  admitted  iv.to  the  churchy  and 
consequently  made  members  of  Christ,  its  head."  The 
Jews  were  admitted  into  the  church  by  circumcision, 
so  are  the  Christians  by  baptism.  "For  as  many  as 
are  baptized  into  Christ,"  in  his  name  "  have"  thereby 
^'  put  on  Christ."  Gal.  iii.  27.  Page  248. 

"  Baptism  doth  now  save  us,  if  we  live  answerable 
thereto;  if  we  repent,  believe,  and  obey  the  Gospel  : 
Supposing  this,  as  it  a^lmits  us  into  the  church  here,  so 
intogloiy  hereafter^  p.  249. 

This,  then,  is  Itlethedism ;  but  Mr.  Terrell  says  he 
does  not  believe  one  word  of  it ;  for  he  does  not  bap- 
tize people  hito  the  Church,  but  because  they  are  Ik 
the  church. 

This  thing,  called  the  "  Discipline  of  the  M.  K. 
Church"  says,  "  None  can  cvder  into  the  kingdom  of 
God,  except  he  be  regenerate  and  born  anew  of  laatcr 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  but  Mr.  Terrell  docs  not  be- 
lieve such  Methodism  as  that. 

This  book,  (Doctrinal  Tracts)  not  only  teaches- that 
we  enter  into  the  church  here,  and  into  glory  hereafter 
by  baptism,  but  that  it  is  by  baptism  that  we  enter  into 
the  new  covenant,  as  I  will  show  yoa.    [Here  Mr.  V 


110  DEBATB  ON  BAPTISM 

paused  for  a  moment,  looked  at  the  book,  and  said]  1 
cannot  find  the  passage  just  now ;  but  I  have  a  good 
memory,  upon  which  I  can  depend,  and  from 
that,  I  feel  certain,  I  can  ^ive  you  the  very  lan- 
guage. It  reads:  "By  baptism  we  ent^r  into  cov- 
enant with  God  ;  into  that  everlasting  covenant,  whicl; 
he  hath  commanded  forever.-'  Let  Mr.  Terrell  dis- 
pute, or  call  in  question  the  correctness  of  this  quota - 
tation  if  he  dares,  and  it  shall  be  forthcoming. 

Now  I  fearlessly  affirm,  that  he  has  renounced  Meth- 
odism— given  up  the  principles  of  his  party;  and  that 
he  cannot  find  one  respectable  writer  in  the  fraternity 
who  agrees  with  him,  that  infants  are  baptized  be- 
cause they  are  in  the  church. 

While  the  gentleman  M^as  laboring  on  this  point,  in 
his  embarrassment,  he  found  that  the  most  conveniens 
way  to  get  offirom  it  was,  to  turn  aside  and  blackguard 
me  for '^ smiling  and  jvin/.ing  at  my  friends."  That  I 
smiled  is  true,  but  that  I  iiinked  at  my  friends,  or  am 
one  else,  is  not  the  fact.  If  we  have,  or  ^\ish  to  have  a 
pleasant  discussion,  I  think  it  very  important  that  1 
i!.hould  smile  occasionally ;  for  Mr.  Terrell  has  looke«l 
more  like  a  thunder- cloud  since  this  discussion  com- 
menced, than  like  a  mild  and  pleasant  gentleman,  i 
always  smile  when  I  am  pleased.  Poor  fellow,  I  knon 
he  cannot  smile,  till  he  gets  out  of  this  discussion. 

The  covenant  concerning  the  land  of  Canaan,  and 
the  covenant  of  circumcision,  he  says,  were  not  separ- 
ate and  distinct  covenants,  but  adjuncts  to  that  con- 
cerning Christ.  This  is  something  the  Redeemer  did 
not  know;  for  he  supposed  that  they  were  adjuncts  ti> 
the  law  of  Moses:  "You  circumcise  on  the  Sabbath 
day,''  said  he  to  the  Jews,  "  that  ihii  law  of  Pluses  may 
not  be  Iroken.''^  If  circumcision  was  not  an  '-adjunct" 
oi\the  law,  how  could  a  man  break  the  law  by  not  be- 
ing circumcised? 

I  nmst  now  notice  some  of  the  passages  which  he  ha< 
brouiiht  forward  to  prove  the  idtnity  of  the  Jewish  an  I 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  1 1  | 

Christian  churches.  Ephesiaus  ii  14,  15,  is  one  of  hi> 
proofs  for  identity  :  "  For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath 
made  both''  (Jews  and  Gentiles)  ''one,  and  hath  broken 
tlown  the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  us;  having^ 
abolished  in  his  flesh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of  com- 
mandments contained  in  ordinances  ;  to  make  in  him- 
self of  tuain  one  new  man,  so  making  peace."  This 
needs  no  comment.  Christ  broke  down  the  law  of 
commandments,  and  with  it  abolished  the  Jewish 
church,  and  the  Jewish  religion,  that  he  might  make  of 
the  tuain — Jews  and  Gentiles,  "  one  new  man^^ — a  netc 
church,  so  making  peace.  Strange  proof  this  for  iden- 
tity. I  now  take  this  passage  to  myself,  and  shall  for- 
ever maintain  that  it  was  intended  to  refute  this  very 
notion  oiideniUy.  It  is  not  the  old  man  or  church  of 
the  Jews,  but  "  one  new  man'' — a  new  body,  a  new 
church  for  God. 

1  wish  now  to  call  your  attention  to  a  passage 
which  Mr.  Terrell  has  read  from  Romans,  xi.  chapter: 
'•  And  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off,  and  thoix 
being  a  wild  olive  tree,  wert  graffed  in  among  thenu 
and  with  them  partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the 
olive  tree  ;  boast  not  against  the  branches.  But  if  thois 
boast,  thou  bearest  not  the  root,  but  the  root  thee. — 
Thou  wilt  say  then,  The  branches  were  broken  of], 
that  I  might  be  graffed  in.  Well,  because  of  unbehet 
they  w^ere  broken  oft';  and  thou  standest  by  faith.'*— 
(Not  by  pedobaptism.)  "  Be  not  high-minded,  but 
fear ;  for  if  God  spared  not  the  natural  branches,  tak^=- 
heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee." 

Who,  in  all  this  world,  i  am  constrained  to  ask,  but 
him  who  has  a  purpose  to  serve,  would  ever  think  that 
this  passage  proved  the  identity  of  the  Jewish  an<! 
Christian  church  ?  Of  what  was  the  Jewish  church 
composed?  It  was  composed  of  the  natural  branches, 
or  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham— of  Abraham's  family 
according  to\\\e  flesh;  men,  women,  and  cliildren;  gooJ, 
had,  and  indifierenl.     Now  we  have  it,   according  ih 


112  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Mr.  Terrell,  that  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham  wer^ 
broken  ofl^the  natural  seed  of  Abraham,  or  themselves, 
and  the  Gentiles  were  graffed  into  the  natural  seed  of 
Abraham.  This  is  a  splendid  thought !  The  fact  is< 
Abraham  himself  is  the  "  Root  or  Olive  trcc^^  and  not 
the  Jewish  church,  as  Mr.  Terrell  vainly  supposes. — 
The  Jews  were  the  natural  branches,  or  the  natural 
offspring  of  the  "  rooV  or  olive  tree.  The  Gentiles 
were  not  the  natural  offspring  of  this  root,  and  conse- 
quently are  regarded  as  taken  from  another,  or  w^ld 
olive  tree,  and  graffed  into  Abraham^,  and  made  hi?^ 
lihildren  by  faith.  "  Thou  standest  by  faith,^''  not  by 
flesh,  as  did  the  Jewish  church.  "If  you  be  Christ's, 
then,"  and  only  then,  "  are  you  Abraham's  seed,"  is  a 
lesson  which  Mr.  Terrell  ought  to  learn.  The  Jews. 
the  natural  branches,  were  broken  ofT  because  of  unbe- 
lief ;  and  the  moment  they  rejected  the  Redeemer,  that 
moment  they  were  rejected  by  the  Lord  from  being  the 
children  of  Abraham,  and  were  turned  out  into  the 
Droad  world  among  other  infidels.  "Neither  because 
they  are  the  seed  of  Abraham,  are  they  all  children  ' 
but  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called.  ''J  hat  is,  they 
which  are  the  children  of  the  Jlesh,  these  are  7wt  the 
i-hildren  of  God  ;  but  the  children  of  the  promise  are 
counted  for  the  seed."  Romans  xi.  7,  8.  "If  Chrisfs 
then  Abraham's  seed  ;"  and  "  they  that  are  Christ's 
have  crucified  the  fiesh."  If  it  is  true,  and  Mr.  Terrell 
knows  that  it  is  true,  that  the  Jewish  church  was  made 
ap  of  the  natural  branches  of  Abraham,  how  can  a 
man  assert  that  a  church  which  is  made  up  oi convert- 
ed men  out  of  every  nation  under  heaven,  is  idcnt'calhf 
the  same  ?  Is  a  converted  Negro,  one  of  the  natural 
seed  of  Abraham  ?  There  isjust  the  difference  between 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches,  that  there  is  be 
t^^eujiesk  and  .spirit.  But  of  this  again. 
[Time  expired.] 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  113 

[mr.  Terrell's  3d  address — 2d  ?rop.] 
My  Christian  friends;  If  I  were  to  consume  time  to 
notice  all  the  gentleman  has  said  of  an  irrelevant  na- 
ture, and  attempt  to  set  it  aside  by  argument,  as  1 
think  I  could  in  time,  I  should  not  be  able  to  proceed 
with  my  affirmative  arguments,  as  it  is  my  intention 
to  do.  He  manifestly  takes  this  course  to  decoy  me 
from  the  point  in  dispute;  but  he  will  find  himself  mis- 
taken in  this  undertaking.  I  shall  pursue  the  even  te- 
nor of  my  way,  and  neither  be  turned  to  the  right  nor 
to  the  left  by  the  stratagems  of  the  gentleman. 

He  appears  not  to  understand  me  yet:  baptism  to 
infants  proves  that  they  are  in  the  covenant;  and  my 
argument  is.  that  if  they  are  in  the  covenant,  they  have 
a  right  to  the  seal  or  the  token  of  the  covenant.  T\ow 
it  is  manifest  that,  if  Christ  died  for  infants,  they  should 
have  a  right  to  the  token  or  seal  of  mercy.  Bui,  my 
friend,  although  he  admits  they  are  in  the  covenant, 
inconsistently  denies  them  the  right  of  the  seal  of  mer- 
oy.  Yet  he  can  talk  largely  about  Mr.  Wesley's  Doc- 
trinal Tracts,  and  what  he  is  pleased  to  represent 
many  of  our  brethren  as  believing!  He  has  even  taken 
the  responsibility  of  telling  you  that  v/e  believe  in  in- 
fant damnation,  ifcc.  Let  me  refer  the  gentleman  to 
Mr.  Thomas,  who  liv^es  somewhere  east,  and  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  same  church  with  Mr.  i  ritchard.  He  con- 
tends that  infants  are  incapable  of  salvation,  and  even 
that  they  will  be  totally  annihilated;  and  this  too,  to 
escape  from  the  awkward  situation  the  gentleman's 
doctrine  and  faith  placed  him  in.  Here  he  can  find 
deplorable  doctrine  relative  to  the  future  condition  ci 
infants,  ii  he  wishes  a  picture  of  this  kmd  to  discarj;t 
upon! 

Mr.Pritchard  speaksof  my  confusion;  but  here  agahi 
is  laboring  under  a  mistake.  It  is  his  own  brain  that 
is  confused,  and  not  my  mind.  Being  confused  himscif, 
and  not  knowing  how  else  to  secrete  it  from.  pubLc 

H 


114  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

view,  he  tells  you  that  I   am  confused!     You  under- 
stand him! 

The  gentleman  accuses  me  of  confounding  the  law 
and  the  gospel,  and  that  too  very  unjustly;  for  1  repu- 
diate the  idea  that  the  law  and  the  gospel  are  the  same. 
1  hold  no  such  position.  The  law  has  nothing  to  do 
with  my  position. 

That' which  Mr.  Pritchard  called  a  covenant,  in  the 
5th  chapter  of  Genesis,  is  merely  an  adjunct  to  the 
covenant  in  the  12th  chapter;  and  in  the  17th  chapter 
the  self  same  covenant  is  merely  confirmed  by  circum- 
cision; and  the  law  was  added  to  the  covenant  because 
of  transgression.  The  Jews  were  cut  otf  from  the 
church  because  of  unbelief,  and  the  Gentiles  were 
grafted  in  by  faith.  The  law  was  a  kind  of  scaffolding 
\vhile  the  noble  edifice  of  the  gospel  was  going  up,and 
when  the  edifice  was  finished,  the  scafiblding  was 
thrown  down. 

Mr.  Pritchard  said  that  if  the  church  of  Christ  was 
established  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  that  it  must  have 
etood  two  thousand  years  without  a  foundation,  for 
Christ  was  the  foundation.  But  here  again  he  is  mista- 
ken; for  Christ  was  as  a  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world.  He  was  the  foundation  of  the  church  in 
the  wilderness  in  the  days  of  Abraham  and  always. — 
i  know  that  Christ's  death  is  the  foundation  of  the 
gospel  kingdom,  and  of  his  church  anciently,  for,  as  I^ 
said  before  he  was  as  a  Lamb  dainfrom  the  foundation  of 
the  world y: 

The  gentleman  quotes  Mr.  Wesley  to  prove  that  we 
believe  in  infant  damnation.  But  here  he  has  misrep- 
resented us  as  well  as  Mr.  Wesley.  No  one  says  that 
infants  who  are  not  baptized  shall  be  hurled  down  to 
Iiell.  Mr.  Wesley  here  says  [Here  Mr.  T.  flourished 
Mr.  Wesley's  Doctrinal  Tracts  beforethe  audience.]  that 
^■God  has  tied  us  to  this  ordinance,  but  he  has  not  tied 
himself— he  can  and  will  show  mercy.     I  have  now,  i 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  115 

hope,  cleared  our  church  from  the  charge  of  believing 
in  infant  damnation,  and  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  not 
make  the  charge  any  more. 

My  second  argument  is  founded  on  the  plain  word 
of  our  Lord.  Jusus  commanded  little  children  to  come 
unto  him.  He  says  Mark  10th  chapter,  14th  verse, 
"Sutfer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid 
them  not  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  The 
kingdom  of  God  here,  means  the  church  of  God.  This 
passage  distinctly  recognizes  little  children  as  in  the 
kingdom  of  God.  It  distinctly  recognizes  them  as 
members  of  the  church.  It  is  evident  that  kingdom 
here  means  church,  for  he  says,  "of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God,''  not  '-of  such  will  be  the  kingdom  of  God." 
"Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me  for  of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God,'"  or  of  such  is  the  church,  as  is  clear- 
ly the  meaning  of  our  Savior. 

We  have  an  account  of  only  two  instances  where  our 
Savior  was  said  to  be  angry,  and  one  of  these  was  on 
the  the  occasion  where  littlechildren  were  broughtunto 
him  and  some  who  held  the  doctrine  of  my  friend  for- 
bid them,  at  which  we  are  informed,  our  Savior  "was 
muck  displeased.  Would  he  not  be  displeased  at  my 
friend  now,  if  he  were  here,  while  he  not  only  forbids 
them,  but  does  every  thing  in  his  power  to  debar  them 
from  the  holy  ordinance?     Surely  he  would. 

We  are  asked,  what  good  sprinkling  a  little  water 
upon  the  face  of  a  child  can  do?  We  answer,  that 
when  little  children  were  brought  to  the  Savior,  "he  put 
his  hands  upon  them  and  blessed  them."  Baptism  is  a 
blessing,  although  an  unbelieving  mind  may  not  per- 
ceive it. 

My  third  argument  is  founded  in  the  fact,  that  in- 
fants are  included  in  the  Commission.  "Go  ye  th>ere- 
fore  and  tcacfi  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  in  the  narnf 
of  the  Father,  and  of  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  1  have 
commanded  you.*'     Now,  as  infants  had  always  been 


116  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

entitled  to  church  membership,  and  had  always  been 
permitted  to  receive  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  it  is 
proof  that  they  are  still  entitled  to  church  membership, 
and  had  always  been  permitted  to  receive  the  seal 
of  the  covenant,  it  is  proof  that  they  are  still 
entitled  to  church  membership,  unless  excluded  by  pos- 
itive law.  If  the  Lord  thought  of  excluding  them, 
surely  he  would  have  said  so,  for  theyiliad  previously 
been  entitled  to  that  privilege.  Let  him  show  me,  then, 
where  the  Savior  or  the  Apostles  ever  excluded  them, 
for  if  they  are  not  excluded  by  positive  law,  or  if  the 
scripture  is  silent  on  the  subject,  it  follows  that  children 
are  yet  entitled  to  church  membership,  and  of  course, 
to  baptism  the  seal  of  it. 

The  commission  included  ^^all  mllon^y^  and  children 
!i ad  always  been  entitled  to  church  membership,  and 
110  commandment  in  the  New  Testament  is  found  to 
put  them  out  or  to  prohibit  them.  And  we  have  seen 
that  they  were  put  into  the  covenant  by  a  positive  law 
and  I  argue  that  they  could  not  be  put  out  or  probibi- 
led  fi'om  church  membership,  without  a  positive  law. 
This  is  strong  ground  and  here  I  stand  and  expect  to 
siand,  unmoved  by  any  effort  the  gentleman  can  make. 

When  we  compare  this  language  with  the  language 
of  the  Savior  before  referred  to,  who  can  doubt  that 
they  brought  little  children  to  the  Savior?  He  did  teach 
'^suffer  little  children  to  come  and  forbid  them  not." — 
How  could  they  come  to  Christ  in  Gods  appointment, 
in  baptism?  Jf  they  were  not  to  come  unto  the  Savior 
he  would  not  have  told  you  to  "suffer  them  to  come.'* 
They  came  into  the  church  and  received  baptism  as  a 
jeal,  in  view  of  being  taught.  This  is  a  token  that 
they  are  to  be  brought  up  in  the  nurture  and  admo- 
nitions  of  the  Lord. 

Mr.  Campbell  says,  ''the  first  thing  is  to  come.'-- 
Not  to  have  faith  but  to  come.  But  the  apostles  who 
are  much  greater,  and  our  Lord,  say  come,  but  Vn. 
f  ritchard  would  sav,  stay  aw^ay.     Well,  baptism  i^  -h*. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  IH 

first  institution,  and  I  ask,  in  what  way  are  they  ta 
come  if  it  be  not  in  baptism?  Then,  after  baptism, 
teach  all  things  which  Christ  commanded.  This  seems 
to  accord  with  the  commission,  but  the  gentleman'.-* 
doctrine  does  not.  But  I  must  hasten  on  to  my  next 
proof. 

My  next  argument  will  be  built  upon  the  household 
baptisms  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.  There 
are  four  households  mentioned  in  the  IN'ew  Testament;, 
that  were  baptized.  Now  it  is  not  likely  that  there 
were  no  children  in  all  four  of  those  families  ;  but  oi> 
the  other  hand,  it  is  almost  certain  that  there  were 
some  children  in  some  of  them,  at  least. 

The  sacred  historian  mentions  the  household  ol 
Stephanos.  He  does  not  mention  the  names  of  the 
members  of  the  family  as  a  Baptist  would  have  done. 
A  Baptist  would  have  mentioned  the  names,  as  John, 
James,  &c.  This  case  furnishes  a  plain  and  unan- 
swerable argument  in  favor  of  infant  baptism,  and  one 
too  that  the  gentleman  can  never  get  over. 

All  that  is  necessary  in  the  case  of  the  baptism  of 
Lydia  and  household,  the  Jailor  and  hi.s  household, 
and  the  household  of  Stephanos,  is  simply  to  look 
carefully  at  the  last  named  case.  The  apostle,  speak- 
ing of  it  says,  "  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Crispus, 
and  Gains,  lest  any  should  say  that  1  have  baptiz^ed  in 
mine  own  name.  And  I  baptized  also  the  household 
of  Stephanos:  besides,  I  know  not  whether  I  baptized 
any  others."  I  Cor.  1:  14,  15,  16.  This  is  as  much  a.< 
to  say,  Crispus  and  Gains,  who  were  adults,  I  baptized 
— they  were  all.  But  his  mind  appears  here  to  be  re- 
freshed, and  he  adds,  "  also  the  household  of  Stephan- 
os.'' Now  is  it  not  clear  that  there  were  children  here':* 
Surely  it  is.  In  the  household  of  Stephanos  were  chil- 
dren, and  they  were  baptized,  and  members  of  the 
church. 

Now  I  have  got  my  argument  pretty  fully  before  the 
gentleman.     ^Ye  shall  see  what  he  will  do  with  it.     1 


S18  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

expect;  in  the  place  of  replying  to  my  arguments,  he 
will  complain,  as  he  did  before,  that  I  do  not  reply  to 
his  arguments.  If  he  does  I  cannot  help  it.  1  have 
got  my  course  marked  out,  and  he  cannot  get  me  from 
it.  I  have  my  proposition  to  prove,  and  I  did  not  ex- 
pect to  be  able  to  please  him. 

He  can  take  up  his  time  in  telUng  how  many  posi- 
tions I  have  occupied,  how  many  contradictions  1  have 
made,  &c.;  but  the  matter  is  for  him  to  reply  to  my 
arguments  if  he  can,  and  if  he  cannot  to  give  it  up. 

I  see  my  time  is  not  quite  out,  but  I  give  the  gentle- 
man the  remaining  two  or  three  minutes. 

MR.    TRITCHARD's    THIRD    REPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators — 

This  is  certainly  ihe  most  singular  discussion  I  have 
ever  been  ejigaged  in ;  for  never  before  did  1  meet  a 
man  who  was  unwilling  to  pay  any  attention  to  what 
I  would  say,  or  too  cowardly  to  join  issue  with  me  up- 
on any  point.  While  discussing  the  question  of  the 
action  of  baptism  on  yesterday,  instead  of  meeting  me 
upon  the  true  issue,  whether  immerse  is  the  literal  and 
proper  meaning  of  baptize,  he  would  first  inform  the 
audience,  that  it  was  no  use  for  him  to  reply  to  every 
thing  1  said,  and  then,  as  a  kind  o^  chorus,  would  say : 
*'  Mr.  Pritchard  has  failed,"  "  signally  failed,"  "  utterly 
failed,"  "and  l.re  ever  must  fail;"  as  if  the  audience 
could  not  see,  that  his  windy  braggadocio  style  was  do- 
ing nothing,  and  even  worse  than  nothing  in  favor  of 
his  rantism.  And  now  that  he  is  the  affirmant,  and  I 
have  replied  to  ever}^  thing,  great  and  small,  which  he 
has  advanced— discussed,  dissected,  and  scattered  to 
the  four  winds  of  heaven,  each,  and  every  point;  he 
pursues  his  onward  course,  asserting  and  reasserting 
the  same  thing  over  and  over  again,  as  if  he  felt  it  nei- 
ther necessary  nor  important  to  reply  to  any  thing  I 
say.  If  he  did  not  intend  to  debate  the  proper  issues 
between  us  with  me,  why  did  he  consent  to  enter  into 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  1 19 

this  discussion  with  me  ?  If  he  dare  not  meet  me,  and 
discuss  the  proper  questions  with  me,  now  that  he  is 
here,  why  did  he  not  stay  at  home?  If  he  dare  not 
join  issue  with  me,  nor  even  attempt  to  reply  to  any 
thing  I  sa}',  (and  it  is  my  solemn  and  conscientious 
^'onviction  that  he  knows  he  dare  not)  I  must,  I  sup- 
pose, permit  him  to  pursue  his  own  course,  and  I  must 
tr}^  to  follow  him.     This  I  feel  certain  I  can  do. 

Before  replying  to  the  last  speech  of  Mr.  Terrell, 
which,  indeed,  was  but  little  more  than  a  reiteration 
of  what  we  have  heard,  and  replied  to,  I  will  call  your 
attentions  to  the  question  ofidentUij,  upon  which  1  was 
speaking  at  the  close  of  my  last  speech.  I  have  a  few 
arguments  yet  to  offer,  upon  which  I  rely  to  disprove 
the  identity  of  the  churches  and  covenants;  and  to 
which,  1  hope,  Mr.  Terrell  will  have  courage  enough 
to  reply,  that  I  may  have  an  opportunity  of  illustrating, 
defending,  and  showing  their  strength.  Turn,  if  you 
please,  to  the  4th  chapter  of  Galatians,  and  hear  the 
apostle  from  the  21st  to  the  last  verse  of  that  chapter. 

'-  Tell  me,  ye  that  desire  to  be  under  the  law,  do  ye 
not  hear  the  law?  For  it  is  written,  that  Abraham 
had  tiLO  sons,  the  one  by  a  bond  maid,  the  other  by  a 
free- woman.  But  he  who  was  of  the  bond- worn  an 
w-as  botvi  after  the  flesh  ;  but  he  of  the  free- woman  was 
by  promise.  Which  things  are  mi  a/lcgojy:  for  these 
are  the  tuo  covenants;  the  one  from  the  Mount  Sinai, 
which  gendereth  to  bondage,  which  is  Agar.  For  this 
Agar  is  Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia  and  answereth  to  Jeru- 
salem which  now  is,  and  is  in  bondage  with  her  chil- 
dren. But  Jerusalem  which  is  above  is  free,  which  is 
the  mother  oi^  us  all.  For  it  is  written,  rejoice,  thou 
barren  that  bearest  not ;  break  forth  and  cry,  thou 
that  travailest  not:  for  the  desolate  hath  many  more 
children  than  she  which  hath  an  husband.  Now  we, 
brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  the  children  of  promise. — 
But  as  then  he  that  was  born  after  the  flesh  persecuted 
iiim  that  was  born  after  the  Spirit,  even  so  it  is  now. 


[•20  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Nevertheless  what  saith  the  Scripture  ?  Cast  out  the 
bond- woman  and  her  son  :  for  the  son  of  the  bond- wo- 
man shall  not  be  heir  with  the  son  of  tlie  free-woman 
So  then,  brethren,  we*  are  not  children  of  the  bond- 
woman, but  of  the  free." 

On  this  observe  1st  that  the  law  and  the  covenant 
of  Sinai  are  considered  one  and  the  same.  Being  un- 
der the  law,  verse  21,  and  being  under  the  covenant  ii; 
the  alleo;onj  are  considered  by  the  apostle,  as  the  same 
circumstance." 

2d.  Abraham's  two  waves,  Hagar  and  Sarah  reprc- 
sent  the  two  covenants,  the  old  and  the  new,  "  for  these 
are  the  two  covenants." 

3d.  There  is  just  the  difference  between  the  old  and 
new  covenants,  that  there  was  between  Hagar  the 
bond-w^oman,  and  Sarah  the  wife  of  Abraham.  When- 
ever a  pedobaptist  will  prove  to  me  that  the  two  cov- 
enants are  the  same,  I  will  prove  that  Abraham's .^/(n?^, 
and  Abraham's  wife,  the  free-woman,  are  one  and  the 
same. 

4th.  Ishmael  and  Isaac  resemble  or  represent  the 
people  under  the  two  covenants.  Ishmael,  the  son  oi 
the  bond-woman,  was  loi^n.  a  slave;  for  a  slave  gen- 
dereth  or  bringeth  forth  slaves,  not  freemen.  So  did 
the  old  Testament  or  covenant,  (see  Gal.  iv.  4:  7,) 
compared  to  Hagar,  which  is  one  of  the  names  o! 
Mount  Sinai  in  x\rabia  ;  and  she,  to  vuit,  Hagar,  re- 
sembles the  then  present  Jerusalem  or  Jewish  Church, 
which  was  in  bondage  under  the  old  covenant.  Isaac, 
the  son  of  the  free- worn  an,  resembled  or  represented 
the  people  under  the  new  covenant,  which  is  called 
the  Jerusalem  from  above,  the  Chriatian  Church,  be- 
cause proclaimed  from  heaven,  by  him  who  is  in  hea- 
ven ;  not  from  Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia,  on  the  earth. 

5th.  As  Ishmael  was  brought  forth  in  the  natural  or 
ordinary  means,  he  fitly  denotes  the  natural  descend- 
ants or  fleshly  seed  of  Abraham,  who  lived  under  the 
old  covenant*,  and  constituted  the  Jewish  church,  tbe 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  121 

members  of  which  were  such  by  natural  bh*th.  Again, 
as  Isaac  was  brought  forth,  not  by  natural,  but  by  su- 
j)ernatural  means,  by  ja'uh  in  Grod's  promise,  when  the 
bodies  of  his  parents  were,  as  to  his  production,  as  good 
as  dead  denotes  the  members  of  the  Christian  church 
Avhich  are  such  not  by  natural  generation,  as  the  Jew- 
ish or  pedobaptist  members  are,  but  by  being  born  as 
Isaac  was,  by  faith  in  God's  promise,  or  by  supernatur- 
al means. 

6th.  There  is  just  the  difference  between  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  churches,  that  there  is  between  Ishmael 
the  son  of  the  bond- woman,  born  "  e/ftei'  thejlesh,^'  and 
Isaac  the  son  of  the  free- woman,  born  "  afte?^  the  Spirit.'" 
Whenever  Mr.  Terrell  will  prove  that  the  Jewish 
church  and  Christian  church  are  one  and  the  same,  I 
will  pledge  myself  to  prove  that  Ishmael.  born  after 
the  flesh,  and  Isaac,  born  after  the  Spirit  or  by  fai/h, 
are  one  and  ihe  same  child.     Let  that  be  remembered. 

7th,  As  the  children  of  the  deserted  woman  Sarah, 
whose  husband  deserted  her  and  associated  with  Ha- 
gar,  are  declared  to  be  more  numerous  than  the  chil- 
dren of  Hagar,  who  possessed  the  husband  of  the  de- 
serted Sarah  ;  so  the  apostle  argues  that  the  spiritual 
seed,  or  children  of  Abraham  by  frith,  born  like  Isaac, 
would  be  more  numerous  than  his  natural  or  literal 
descendants. 

8th.  That  as  Ishmael  the  child  of  the  flesh,  per.secu- 
ted,  by  railing  and  reviling,  Isaac  the  child  of  promi.se, 
so  the  Jews,  the  natural  descendants  of  Abraham,  and 
tho.se  who  plead  for  church  membership  on  the  same 
ground  of  natural  birth,  then,  and  since,  and  now  perse- 
cute, sometimes  by  railing  and  reviling,  and  in  time 
past,  by  sword  and  fauot.  those  who  have  been  born  of 
the  free- woman  or  the  children  of  faith,  the  sons  of  the 
new  covenant. 

9th.  But  what  saith  the  scripture  ?  Aye,  this  is  the 
question.  What  did  Sarah  say?  Mark  it  well  my 
friends.     Mark  it  well  ye  pedobaptists.     O,  it  is  an 


122  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

oracle  you  should  never  forget.  What  did  Sarah  say, 
as  the  scripture  records?  "Cast  out,"  tremendous 
words,  "  Cast  out  the  bond-woman,'^  the  old  covenant 
compared  to  Hagar,  Disannul  it,  vacate  it,  lay  it 
aside,  reject  it.  Is  that  all  ?  No,  no*  Cast  out  the 
aon  of  Hagar  also,  the  people  of  the  old  covenant,  the  Jew- 
ish church.  Yes  remember  the  allegory^  as  the  Spirit 
of  inspiration  has  called  and  represented  it.  Ishmael 
denotes  all  that  are  merely  the  children  of  the  flesh. — 
"  Cast  out  the  bond-maid  and  her  son  Isiimael."  For 
what  reason  ?  Because  it  is  decreed  of  heaven,  it  is 
declared  by  God,  that  the  son  of  the  bond-woman,  the 
people  of  the  old  covenant,  shall  not  be  members  under 
the  new  covenant,  shall  not  beheirs  of  the  inheritance 
with  the  sons  of  the  free- woman,  the  people  who  are 
the  sons  of  Jerusalem  which  is  above,  the  mother  of  all 
believers. 

10th.  The  last  item  in  this  paragraph  we  shall  no- 
tice now  in  this  glorious  truth,  last  verse.  ''So  then 
brethren  we  are  not  children  of  the  hond-viaid'' — the  old 
covenant,  and  consequently  not  the  Jewish  church,  but 
0^  th.e  free -worn:  I  n — the  new  covenant,  consequently  the 
Christian  church  ;  and  like  Isaac,  children  of  Abraham 
hy  faith.  Heirs  with  Christ  of  an  inheritance  incorrup- 
tible, and  unfading  in  the  heavens.  "If  you  be  Christ's, 
then  are  you  Abraham's  seed."  said  an  apostle,  "  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise."  Believers  are  the  only 
children  of  Abraham  under  the  Christian  dispensation. 

11th.  Another  fact  of  some  importance,  in  under- 
standing this  question,  I  will  mention — viz  :  Ishmael 
the  slave,  and  representative  ot the  fleshly  seed  of  A- 
braham,  or  of  the  Jewish  ehurch,  was  the  clkr  of  the 
two.  Isaac  the  son,  and  representative  of  the  spiritual 
seed  of  Abraham,  came  into  being  hy  faith,  after  the 
child  according  to  the  flesh  was  born.  The  cldi^j'  was 
the  servant,  the  younger  the  son.  So  the  Jews,  the 
children  of  the  bond- woman,  the  fleshly  seed,  were  the 
elder;  but  the  Christians,  the  children  of  the  frec-wo- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  .  123 

man,  the  spiritual  seed,  are  the  younger;  and  like  Isaac, 
the  children  of  promise. 

Leaving  the  family  of  Abraham,  and  descending  to 
ihe  family  of  Isaac,  we  find  two  children  there  also  pre- 
♦iCnted,  as  the  representatives  of  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  people,  or  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
churches.  When  Rebecca  had  conceived  by  Isaac,  the 
Lord  said  unto  her,  "  Two  nations  are  in  thy  womb, 
and  TWO  manner  of  people  shall  be  separated  from  thy 
bowels ;  and  the  one  people  shall  be  stronger  than  the 
o'her  people;  and  the  elder  shall  servs  the  ijOungcry — 
Genesis,  xxv,  23. 

Here  we  discover  that  the  representatives  o{  two  na- 
tions, or  o{  two  manner  of  people  were  to  be  separated 
from  Rebecca.  Now  hear  Paul  in  the  9th  chapter  of 
his  epistle  to  the  Romans:  "  They  are  not  all  Israel 
which  are  of  Israel :  neither,  because  the}^  are  the  seed 
•of  Abraham,  are  they  all  children  :  but,  in  Isaac  shall 
thy  seed  be  called.  That  is,"  (now  mark)  "  they  which 
are  the  children  of  the  flesh,  these  are  not  the  children  of 
God  :  but  the  children  of  the  p7v?mse  are  counted  for 
the  seed.  For  this  is  the  word  of  promise,  At  this  time 
I  will  come,  and  Sarah  shall  have  a  son.  And  not 
<jnlj/  this,^^  (we  have  still  more  proof,  equally  as  strong, 
plain,  and  clear,)  "  but  when  Rebecca  also  had  con- 
ceived by  one,  even  by  our  father  Isaac ;  it  was  said 
unto  her,  The  (hhr  shall  serve  the  younger ^ 

We  have  already  seen  that  Ishmael,  the  elder,  the 
fleshly,  and  child  of  the  hjn(l-\Yom?iXi,  represented  the 
Jewish  nations,  or  Jewish  church,  the  elder,  the  Jleshli/, 
and  children  of  the  old  covenant ;  and  that  Isaac,  the 
younger,  the  spit^itual,  and  child  of  the/?  cc-woman,  rep- 
resented the  Christian  nation,  or  Christian  church  ;  the 
1/Oiinger,  the  spiriticil,  and  children  of  the  7iew  covenant. 
This  passage  from  Romans  shows,  that  Esau,  the 
elder,  and  the  servant,  represents  the  same  nation  that 
Ishmael  did,  and  that  Jacob,  the  younucr,  the  child  of 
promise,  represents  the  same  nation  that  Isaac  did. — 


124  '  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISxM 

Now,  as  the  Jewish  church  was  composed  of  the  flesh 
ly  seed,  and  the  Christian  church  of  the  spiritual  seed 
they  cannot  be  one  and  the  same,  unless  it  can  hv 
proved,  1st.  That  Jlrsh,  and  spirit  are  one  and  the 
same,  2nd,  That  Ishmael  and  Isaac  are  one  and  tht- 
same  child ;  and  3rd,  That  Jacob  and  Esau  are  one 
and  the  same.  This  never  can  be  done.  The  Jewisli. 
church,  and  Jewish  nation,  are  but  two  names  for  the 
.same  thing ;  so  also  the  Christian  church,  and  the 
Christian  nation  are  but  two  names  for  the  same  peo- 
ple. Now  the  Almighty  Father  of  our  Spirits,  ii>. 
speaking  to  Rebecca,  with  special  reference  to  these 
two  nations  or  churches,  declared,  that  they  should  be 
"two  nations,"  not  one  and  the  same,  "  and  two  man- 
ner of  people,"  people  wholly  unlike  each  other.  Let 
Mr.  Terrell  mark  that.  I  maintain  that  the  Lord  ha» 
declared  in  this,  that  the  two  churches  are  not  one  and 
the  same  church,  but  that  they  are  "  /wo  manner  oi 
people,"  differing  from  each  other  as  widely  as  any 
two  people  ever  did.  Let  Mr.  Terrell  drive  me  fron^: 
this,  if  he  can.  He  may  produce  a  great  many  proofs 
^vhich  go  to  show  that  the  Methodist  church,  and  this 
old  ^^e.s///// establishment  of  the  Jews,  are  one  and  the 
same  ,  but  that  the  Christian  and  Jewish  churches  are 
one,  has  not,  nor  never  can  be  proved.  I  mustreturii 
and  pay  my  respects  to  Mr.  Terrell  again. 

He  says,  he  did  not  say  that  the  covenant  of  Canaan, 
and  the  covenant  of  circumcision  were  both  adjuncts 
to  that  concerning  Christ,  but  that  the  one  concerning 
Canaan  was  an  adjunct,  and  that  circumcision  con- 
Jirmed  the  covenant.  He  told  us  but  a  short  time  since 
that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  the  CTOspel  cov- 
enant. But  now  he  has  discovered,  it  seems,  that  it  is 
not  the  Gospel  covenant,  but  only  a  mark,  by  which 
the  Gospel  covenant  was  confirmed.  This  is  an  im- 
portant improvement  in  his  theology."  As  he  has  takers 
one  step  for  the  better,  I  must  now  try  and  cause  him 
to  take  another,  and  I  think  he  will  be  pretty  nearly 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  125 

Tight.  That  the  covenant  concerning  Christ  was  not 
confirmed  by  circumcision,  is  evident,  as  will  appear 
from  the  following  reasons  :  1st.  The  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision was  a  separate  and  distinct  covenant  of  it- 
self— a  "covenant  in  the  Jiesh,'^  as  I  have  proved. — 
2nd.  The  covenant  concerning  Christ  was  confirmed 
'■'four  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  the  law."  Gal. 
iii.  17.  Now  it  is  a  fact,  that  Mr.  Terrell  ought  to 
have  understood,  that  circumcision  was  given  only 
four  hundred  and  six  years  before  the  law  ;  twenly- 
four  years  after  the  covenant  concerning  Christ  wa>^ 
confirmed.  It  follov/S  from  this,  that  it  w^as  not  con- 
firmed by  circumcision. 

In  his  first  speech  he  told  us  that  he  baptized  infants 
to  bring  them  into  the  church,  where  alone  there  is 
safety.  In  his  second  he  told  us  that  he  baptized 
them,  not  to  induct  them  in  o  the  church,  but  because 
they  were  in  the  church.  He  now  tells  us  that  this  is 
all  wrong ;  for,  he  said  in  his  last  speech,  he  baptizes 
them  to  iJiov".  that  they  are  in  the  church.  If  they  are 
ia  the  church,  and  he  knows  that  they  are  zti,  I  do  not 
>;ee  what/7roof  he  wants  to  convince  him  of  it.  There 
are  three  statements  he  has  made,  and  only  one  of  them 
-all  can  possibly  be  true.     Which  does  ht?  be'ieve  ? 

Baptism,  he  says,  is  the  seal  which  the  Lord  puts  up- 
on his  children.  Paul  did  not  so  understand  it,  for  in 
his  epistle  to  the  Epheslans,  1st  chap.,  13th  verse,  he 
said,  "  After  that  you  believed,  you  were  sealed  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise."  Mr.  Terrell  says  it  was 
baptism ;  but  Paul  says  it  was  the  Holy  Spirit.  Which 
shall  we  believe  ?  I  wish  you,  my  friends,  to  remem- 
ber this,  for  I  shall  have  use  for  it,  when  we  come  to 
debate  the  last  proposition. 

Methodists,  he  seems  to  think,  are  not  alone  in  their 
belief  of  infant  damnatioi ;  for  Dr.  Thomas,  a  member 
of  the  Reformation,  believed  the  same  thing,  he  tells 
U5>.  Dr.  Thomas  is  not  a  member  of  the  Reformation. 
Nor  is  it  true  that  he  believed  in  the  damnation  of  in- 


126  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

fants,  as  Methodists  do.  He  neither  believed  in  dam- 
nation nor  salvation.  He  was  a  destructibnist  of  the 
iigoled  stamp — a  blind  zealot,  immersed  in  one  idea,  de- 
voutly war- sprinkling  the  no-soul-god  of  his  party  ;  and 
for  his  nolonous  course,  the  brethren  have  long  since 
"  delivered  him  over  to  Satan  for  the  destr-udion  of  the 
flesh."  If  Mr.  Terrell  thinks  it  any  honor  to  be  in 
company  with  Dr.  Thomas,  he  is  welcome  to  all  such 
honor. 

Mr.  Terrell  has  at  length  found  his  way  into  the 
New  Testament.  He  quotes  Mark,  10th  chap.,  "  Suf- 
fer the  little  children  to  come  unto  me,"  as  if  that  pas- 
sage had  any  thing  to  do  with  the  baptism  of  infants  or 
adults.  Does  he  not  know  that  Christ  did  not  baptize 
infants,  or  any  body  else?  Does  he  not  know  that 
John  says,  "Jesus  himself  did  not  baptize"?  (Here 
Mr.  Terrell  spoke  and  said — I  know  sir,  as  well  as  you 
do,  that  Jesus  never  baptized  any  body.)  Mr. 
Pritchard  said — For  what  then  did  he  quote  this  pas- 
sage ?  He  quoted  it  to  prove  infant  baptism,  but  nov.^ 
tells  us,  that  he  knew  when  he  quoted  it  that  Christ 
did  not  baptize  any  one ;  and  consequently  that  the 
passage  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  subject  on  hand. — 
Are  we  not  then  authorized  to  charge  him  with  icilfulbj 
and  knowingly  misapplying  a  passage  of  scripture? — 
(Here  Mr.  Terrell  arose  and  said — I  wish  to  make  a 
point  0^  order.)  Mr.  Pritchard — 1  know  it  harts^y  but  I 
can't  help  it.  (Mr.  Terrell — No  sir,  it  don't  hurt,  but  I 
wish  to  know  if  the  gentleman  is  not  out  of  order,  in 
charging  me  with  wilfully  and  knowingly  misapplying 
the  scriptures?)  Mr.  Pritchard — Before  the  Modera- 
tors decide  that,  I  wish  them  to  decide  another  point. 
I  want  the  Moderators  to  decide  whether  1  was  more 
out  of  order,  in  charging  him  with  knowingly  misap- 
plying a  passage,  than  he  was,  in  his  closing  speech 
last  evening,  representing  me  as  an  idling  gadabout  ? 
Such  a  stupid,  contemptible  insult,  I  regard  as  more, 
out  of  order,  than  saying  a  man  did,  what  he  confessed 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  127 

Le  did.  (Mr.  Terrell — I  did  not  say  he  was  an  "idling 
gadabout ;"  I  only  said,  he  might  have  plenty  of  time 
to  spend  in  debating.)  Mr.  Pritchard — you  said  more 
than  that — you  said  '  ^Iprobahlj/had  nothing  else  to  do.") 
(Mr.  Burress  said — It  was  by  implication  Mr.  Terrell — 
it  was  clearly  implied  in  what  you  said.)  (Mr.  Ter- 
rell—I did  not  intend  it  as  an  insult.)  Mr.  Pritchard 
— I  probably  should  not  have  noticed  it,  if  it  had  not 
have  been  for  the  fact,  that  you  were  guilty  of  the 
same  thing  once  before.  (Mr.  Burress — x\s  two  wrongs 
cannot  make  one  right,  I  suppose  we  will  have  to  say, 
they  were  both  out  of  order.)  Mr.  Pritchard  then  said — 
Thank  you  gentlemen.  The  Moderators  have  decided 
liS  both  out  of  order.     So  we  are  ju.stei;c7i. 

I  must  now  return  to  the  last  speech  of  Mr.  Terrell.; 
He  told  you,  that  if  the  New  Testament  was  silent  up- 
on the  subject,  it  is  the  strongest  evidence  in  the  world 
of  infant  baptism.  Do  I  understand  the  gentleman  to 
mean,  that  if  a  thing  is  not  commanded  we  know  it 
ought  to  be  done,  but  if  it  is  commanded  we  know  it 
ought  not  to  be  done.  Is  this  his  position  ?  My  Bible 
reads,  "  Keep  my  commandments,"  and  "  nw  unto  the 
man  who  adds  to  them."  He  knows  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  silent,  and  for  that  reason  he  wishes  to  make  it 
an  argument  in  his  favor.  If  I  were  determined  to 
hold  on  to  the  ci-red  of  a  party,  without  any  regard  for 
the  Bible,  I  would  tell  all  the  world  that  such  was  my 
intention. 

I  must  now,  in  the  remaining  part  of  my  time,  notice 
his  argument  from  household  baptisms.  The  first  is 
that  of  Cornelius,  in  Acts,  10th  chapter.  In  the  2nd 
verse  it  is  said,  Cornelius  "  feared  God  with  all  his 
i-rousE."  In  the  thirty-third  verse,  he  said,  "  Now  there- 
fore are  we  all  hei-e  present  before  God,  to  hear  all 
THINGS  that  are  commanded  thee  of  God."  In  the  for- 
ty-fourth verse,  it  is  said,  "  The  Holy  Spirit  fell  on 
all  them  which  heard  the  word."  They  cdl  heard,  and 
the  Spirit  fell  on  all  who  heard  the  word.     But  ho\\ 


128  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

did  Peter  and  his  companions  know  that  the  Spirit  fell 
on  them  ?  Why,  "  they  heard  them  speak  with  tongues, 
and  magnify  God."  They  "  all  feared  God,"  they  all 
heard  the  word,  the  '*  all  spoke  with  tongue-,  and  mag- 
nified  God."  Whenever  your  children  are  old  enough 
to  fear  God,  hear  his  word,  speak  with  tongues,  and  mag- 
nify God,  baptize  them  ;  but  don't  do  it  before. 

The  next  is  the  household  of  Lydia,  Acts,  16th  chap. 
It  is  not  said,  they  feared  God,  heard  his  word,  or  spoke 
with  tongues  ;  it  is  only  said,  they  were  baptized.  But 
m  the  last  verse  we  find  this  language:  "And  they  went 
out  of  the  prison,  and  entered  into  the  house  of  Lydia: 
and  when  they  had  seen  the  rkktiiren,"  (not  infants) 
*' they  coMF©RTED  THEM,  aud  departed."  From  this  we 
learn,  that  they  were  Brethren,  capable  of  being  com- 
forted by  the  zz;or^.?  of  the  Apostles.  Vv  henever  your 
children  are  old  enough  to  be  eomfortcd  by  the  "  ex- 
ceeding great  and  precious  promises"  of  the  Gospel, 
baptize  them,  but  don't  do  it  before. 

In  the  same  chapter  it  is  said,  the  Jailer  and  all  his 
were  baptized;  and  after  his  baptism,  it  is  said,  he 
"  rejoiced,  believing  in  God  with  all  his  house.'"  They 
all  believed,  and  all  irjoiceij,  and  were  all  baptized. — 
More  than  that,  "  Paul  preached  unto  him  the  word  of 
God,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  huusc.^'  tV2d  verse. — 
They  all  heard,  they  all  telieixd,  they  were  all  baptized, 
.md  they  all  rejoiced  in  the  God  of  their  salvation. — 
When  your  children  can  do  all  these  things,  baptize 
them,  but  not  before. 

"  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Stephanos,"  sa\  s 
Paul.  1st  Corinthians,  1st  chap.,  16th  verse.  In  the 
last  chapter  of  this  same  epistle  he  speaks  of  the  same 
house.  "  Brethren,"  says  he,  "  you  know  the  house 
of  Stephanos,  and  thy'^  (the  household)  ^'  have  a  Idicttd 
■hemsdves  to  the  minjstry  of  the  saints.''  Here  we  see. 
that  these  2«/c^7i/5  of  Stephanos  were  prcatheis  of  the 
Gospel.  These  were  certainly  the  .swor/cs/ infants  of 
whom  I  ever  read.     I  really  supposed  that  I  had  one 


?.ND  TK£  HOLY  SPIRIT,  129 

*fcf  the  smartest  boys  in  all  this  country;  but,  I  mast  con- 
fess, that  these  babes  of  New  Testament  memory  are 
^.marter  than  mine.  Yes,  ihey  are  called  by  Pan], 
*  the  first  fruits  of  yichaia,"  and  after  their  conver- 
sion, '*  they  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministry  of  the 
saints."  When  your  children  can  become  the  fruit  i:y'^ 
the  incorruptible  seed,  and  afterwards  addict  them- 
selves to  the  ministry  of  the  saints,  baptize  them,  but 
not  before.  Mr.  Terrell  had  better  abandon  the  New 
Testament,  and  return  to  the  question  of  uleniiip.  for 
upon  that  hangs  his  only  hope. 

[Time  expired.] 
Adjourned  to  meet  at  half  past  1  o'clock. 

[mr.  Terrell's  4th  at/dress — 2d  frof."; 

Gentlemen  Moderators;  Gentlemen  and  Ladies  :  i. 
wish  to  say  once  for  all,  and  1  wish  it  distinctly  under- 
stood, that  I  am  not  the  advocate  of  two  covenants  m 
Heb.  8th.  The  gentleman  has  misrepresented  me 
.shamefully  and  wilfully  on  this  point.  I  therefore  wish. 
to  set  the  matter  right  and  let  this  audience  know  tne 
position  I  do  occupy  at  ihe  start, 

The  gentleman  speaks  of  the  covenant  menlioned 
Hcb.,  8th  chapter;  but  the  covenant  ifiere  spoken  of 
was  made  with  the  h-  use  of  Israel,  a,nd  was  not  the 
covenant  made  with  Abraham  at  all.  if  my  friend 
will  remember  this  it  will  save  him  of  much  diflicuity 
v/hich  he  must  fall  into,  if  he  shall  continue  inattentive 
to  this  important  point, 

Mr.  Pritchard  could  not  get  ovor  the  household  bap- 
tisms mentioned  in  my  last  spet-ch  ;  but  still  he  ma^^t 
say  something  about  them.  The  household  of  Ste- 
phanas is  a  very  plain  ca.-e,  and  a  strong  case,  ciml 
the  gentleman  has  made  no  offset  to  my  argument  on 
the  baptism  of  that  household.  Paul  says  to  the  Cor- 
inthians, <^  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Crispusand  Gai- 
ns," and  I  remember  no  others.  Yes,  there  v/as  tIm 
household  of  Stephanos,  besides  v^hich  I  know  not  that 
I  baptized  any  other.  I 


1  ;,'0  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

xMr.  Pritcliard  allows  that  the  language  of  scripture, 
if  it  proves  infant  baptism,  also  proves  infant  confimu- 
nion,  and  infant  ministering  to  the  saints  ;  for  it  says^ 
they  addicted  themselves  to  the  ministering  to  the 
>Saints.  IJut  in  all  this  he  is  mistaken  again.  They 
T,verc  baptized  among  the  first  fruits  of  Corinth,  and  their 
ministering  to  the  Saints,  as  mentioned  ill  scripture, 
was  long  enough  after  their  conversion  to  have  grown 
lip  from  infancy  to  the  age  when  they  would  be  capa- 
ble ofininistering  to  the  Saints; 

In  the  providence  of  Godj  this  household  was  ad- 
dicted to  ministering  to  the  Saints,  but  that  minister- 
ing did  not,  as  Mr.  Pritchard  seems  to  think,  consist  in 
preaching  the  gospel  to  them.  It  evidently  meant  no- 
thing more  than  that  they  were  kind  and  hospitable  to 
tho.se  whom  they  entertained.  Tlie  same  as  if  the  gen- 
tleman should  say  that  Brother  Shawhan  is  kind,  hos- 
pitable, and  ministers  to  the  necessities  of  all  in  his 
power;  or  the  household  of  brother  Peck  is  addicted  to 
ministering  to  the  sick  or  needy.  The  passage  has  na 
reference  to  preaching  whatever.     ' 

I  said  our  Savior  received  little  children  and  blessed 
them.  I  did  not  intimate  that  he  baptized  them.  I 
said  no  such  thing.  I  know  that  our  Savior  did  not 
baptize,  and  we  all  know  that  baptism  was  not  then 
in.stituted'.  Jesus  merely  blessed  them.  Parents  then 
had  a  right  and  the  privilege  to  bring  their  children 
to  Christ;  Such  is  the  duty  of  believing  parents  now. 
Children  had  the  privilege  of  having  the  arms  of  the 
church  thrown  around  them,  and  being  blessed  by  the 
Head  of  the  church.  This  is  all  denied  now.  Mr.  P. 
vv'ould  have  us  believe  that  children  are  barred  from 
the  holy  influences  of  the  church. 

He  has  not  told  us  what  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
means.  He  certainly  knows  that  it  was  the  church  \ 
and  if  believing  parents  brought  their  children  to  the 
church  then,  we  may  now.  He  seemed  puzzled  and 
perplexed  greatly  on  this  point. 

Mr.  Pritchard  made  an  important  admission  in  his- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  131 

last  speech.  It  was  this :  He  says,  "it  is  with  the 
identity  of  the  church  this  question  stands  or  falls"? 
Yes,  my  fellow- citizens,  it  is  with  the  identity  o(  the 
church  this  question  stands  or  falls.  I  would  refer  vou 
again  to  the  ItJth  verse  of  the  15th  chapter  of  Acts^: — 
••  After  this  I  will  return  and  build  again  the  taberna- 
cle of  David,  which  is  fiillen  down,  and  I  •will  build 
again  the  ruins  thereof,  and  I  will  set  it  up."  Now  is' 
it  not  plain,  from  this  scripture,  that  the  tabernacle 
and  church  is  one  and  the  same  ?  He  says,  "■  I  build 
again,"  that  "  which  is  fallen  down."  We  all  know 
that  tabernacle  here  means  church  ;  hence  he  is  going 
again  to  build  thechurch.  Does  it  say  a  new-  one  ? 
No.  But  the  one  that  had  fallen  down.  St.  James 
applies  this  to  the  point  in  hand.  The  same  taber- 
nacle that  was  fallen,  down  is  built  up  again. 

The  gentleman's  gestures  and  boastful  manner  are 
very  ludicrous  truly.  He  boasts  and  talks  very  loud 
and  knowing.  He  reminds  me  of  a  man  who  went 
down  the  river  and,  in  trading,  become  unfortunate  ; 
and,  for  fear  his  friends  and  creditors  v/ould  find  it  oirr, 
he  borrowed  a  gold  watch  to  wear  home.  This  he 
did  to  keep  up  appearances.  So  it  is  with  Mr,  iPritch- 
ard.  He  boasts  and  exhibits  all  the  strange  gestures 
he  can  get  iip  to  keep  up  appearances,  and  make  the 
people  believe  he  is  doing  great  things  when  in  reality 
he  is  doing  nothing. 

I  V,  ill  nov/  call  your  attention  to  another  passage  of 
scripture  to  prove  the  identity  of  the  church.  "Hea 
another  parable:  There  was  a  certain  householder, 
which  planted  a  vineyard,  and  hedged  it  round  about, 
and  and  digged  a  Avine-press  in  it,  and  built  a  tovver, 
and  let  it  out  to  husbandmen  and  went  into  a  far 
country  :  and  when  the  time  of  the  fruit  drew  near, 
he  sent  his  servants  to  the  husbandmen,  that  they 
might  receive  the  fruits  of  it.  And  the  husbandmen 
t©ok  his  sei-vants,  and  beat  one,  and  killed  another, 
and  gtoned   another,"  Mat.  21  :    33,  35.      A^ain.  he 


132  DEBATE  ON  BAPriSM 

says,  "  Therefore,  say  I  unto  you,  The  kingdom  of  God 
shall  be  taken  from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bring- 
ing forth  the  fruits  thereof."  Verse  43.  Now  fix  your 
t'.ye  on  this  passage,  and  see  if  it  is  not  the  same  king- 
iiom  or  church  that  was  taken  from  the  Jews  that  was 
given  to  the  Gentiles.  Just  as  I  showed  you  from  Ro- 
mans, 1  Itbw  chapter  and  20th  verse  :  "Well;  because 
of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off;  and  thou  standest  by 
faith.  Be  not  high-minded,  but  fear;  for  if  God  spared 
not  the  natural  branches,  take  heed  iest  he  also  spare 
uot  thee.  Behold  therefore  the  goodness  and  severity 
of  the  Lord;  on  them  which  fell,  severity  ;  but  towards 
thee,  goodness  ;  if  thou  continue  in  his  goodness :  other- 
wise, thou  also  shalt  be  cut  off.  And  they  also,  if  they 
abide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall  be  graffed  in  :  for  God 
is  able  to  graff  them  in  again." 

The  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  the  church  of  God,  i,s 
like  a  nursery,  and  the  child  is  like  a  young  fig-tree, 
while  it  is  a  cion,  planted  from  the  nursery.  So  the 
child  is  taken  from  the  nursery  and  planted  in  the 
church  of  God,  where  it  is  replanted,  and  in  that  fruit- 
ful soil  and  salubrious  atmosphere,  by  the  attentive 
hand  of  the  husbandman,  it  is  trained  up  in  the  way  it 
should  go  ;  and,  under  his  superintendence,  it  is  brought 
up  in  the  nurture  and  admonitions  of  the  Lord.  We 
do  not  plant  the  seed,  but  we  dig  the  pion  from  the 
uursery,  and  replant  it  in  a  better  spot. 

Now  the  gospel  covenant,  made  with  Abraham,  in- 
cluded children.  They  were  made  members  of  that 
covenant  by  positive  law,  and  1  have  shown  you  that 
it  would  require  positive  law  to  exclude  them.  As 
Mr.  Pritchard  has  not  brought  a  "  thus  saith  the  Lord" 
ibr  excluding  them,  it  follows  that  they  must  still  be 
entitled  to  church  membership.  I  showed  that  it  wa.s 
an  everlasting  covenant ,  but  JMr.  Pritchard  is  turnin" 
Universalist,  for  he  says  that  everlasting  does  not  mean 
.-always.     So  say  the  Universaiists. 

Mr.  P.  should  remember  that  the  apostle  does  not  say 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  I'^S 

that  the  covenant  was  made  and  confirmed  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  before,  but  merely  madr.  "Ho 
must  remember  that  it  had  to  be  conlirmed."  The  pro- 
per votes  of  the  people  of  this^  tate  entitle  your  legisla- 
tors  to  theirseats  at  thecapitalof  theState;  but  although 
they  receive  the  popular  vote  of  the  people,  they  have 
to  place  their  cirtificates  at  the  proper  plade,  be  sworn 
into  office,  and  thus  pass  througb  a  certain  formula  be 
fore  they  can  legally  act.  So  it  was  in  the  case  before 
us.  The  covenant  was  made,  but  had  to  be  confirmed 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after. 

So  thank  God,  the  death  of  our  Savior  brings  salvation 
to  our  children, and  by  his  death  they  are  pardoned,  and 
they  mvist  go  through  a  formula  or  rule — they  have 
to  receive  the  token  of  the  covenant,  which  is  baptism. 

When  Mr.  P.  speaks  of  the  branches  being  broken 
off  he  does  not  tell  us  what  they  were  broken  off  from. 
If  they  were  not  broken  off  from  the  old  church,  I  should 
like  to  know  what  they  were  broken  off  from.  Is  i*. 
not  clear  that  they  were  broken  off  from  the  church 
and  the  Gentiles  were  grafted  into  the  same  church,  and 
not  a  new  one  as  the  gentleman  would  have  it. 

1  want  it  understood  that  I  do  not  mean  the  Jewish 
covenant,  but  the  covenant  that  God  made  v.ith  Abra- 
ham, which  is  the  same  covenant  he  has  made  with  u.-<. 
The  go.^pel  was  preached  to  Abraham,  saying,  in  thee, 
and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  be  blessed.  That 
is  the  covenant  I  am  talking  about,  and  not  the  Jevvisfi 
covenant  at  all. 

This  covenant  at  the  first  included  infants,  and  Icon- 
tend  that  as  we  have  the  same  covenant  yet,  and  as  it 
contained  infants  at  the  beginning,  and  as  they  werc' 
put  in  by  a  positive  law;  and  have  never  been  put  out 
by  any  law  from  God;  that  they  are  certainly  in  the 
covenant  yet.  And,  as  1  have  said  before,  the  si- 
lence of  the  bible  on  the  subject,  from  the  enactment 
of  the  law  including  infants  to  the  present  time  is  ?i 
first  rate  argument  against  my  opponent,  and  in  fa- 


134  DEBATE  O^   BAPriSM 

vor  of  infant  baptism.     We  need  no  better  argument 
tlian  this. 

I  did  not  say  that  infant  baptism  inducted  intaats 
Into  tl^e  church  of  God.  1  shnply  said  that  it  inducts 
ihem  into  the  visible  church  here.  They  are  already 
In  covenant  with  God  and  in  the  church  of  God 
universal,  but  they  are  not  in  the  visible  church. — 
The  gentleman  may  then  talk  about  my  taking  differ- 
ent positions,  but  it  will  only  show  that  he  does  not  un- 
derstand me,  in  the  place  of  showing  that  1  have  con- 
tradicted myself.  I  understand  myself,  my  christian 
inends,  and  have  by  no  means  crossed  my  track,  nor  do 
1  believe  the  gentleman  thinks  so,  but  he  simply  talks 
so,  as  I  said  before,  to  iill  up  his  time  and  keep  up  ap- 
[)earances. 

Christian  friends,  we  then,  have  a  divine  right  and 
privilege,  yes,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  give  our  children  up 
to  the  Lord  in  baptism.  Yes,  thank  God,  they  are  not 
left  out  of  the  covenant  but  it  is  our  privilege  to  have 
them  with  us  in  the  covenant  of  promise;  and  bring 
ihem  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonitions  of  the  Lord. 

I  would  now  proceed  to  recapitualate  my  arguments 
but  my  time  is  out,  and  I  will  take  my  seat  and  hear  the 
gentleman  again. 

(Time  expired.) 

Mil.    PRTTCJIAnD's  FOURTfi  R'SJLY. 

(.xentlemen  ?tIoderators : 

Mr.  Terrell  seems  somewhat  refreshed  by  the  rest  h<". 
had  at  noon;  for  he  has  come  up  to  the  work  since  din- 
ner apparently  with  new  zeal,  and  new  determinations 
to  defend  his  position  if  possible  His  position  is  an 
unenviable  one.  I  envy  not  him  in  the  happiness  and 
])leasure  he  has  in  defending  it.  Nor  do  I  very  greatly 
desire  the  vexation.  But  my  benevolence  and  sympa- 
thy will  not  allow  me  to  increase  his  mortiiication. 

The  house  hold  of  Stephanas,  he  says,  were  infants 
when  they  were  baptized,  but^rc?6-  to    be   ??icn  hei'ovo. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  1S5 

Paul  wrote  the  Epistle.  They  were  baptized  in  the 
year  Jiftyjive;  and  Paul  wrote  the  Epistle  in  the  year 
Jifty^ninc.  If  they  were  infants  when  baptized,  they 
must  have  been  very  large  men  in  four  years.  This  is 
too  bad.  But  they  were  not  ministers  of  the  word,  he 
says,  but  benevolent  persons,  "given  to  hospitality," 
and  entertaining  strangers.  In  Jifl>j--fivc  they  were  in- 
fants, but  in //%-w2«'- just  four  years  afterwards,  they 
were  men  of  families  given  to  hospitality,  and  entt- r- 
taining  the  saints.  If  this  is  all  true,  they  must  have 
been  smarter  than  I  supposed  they  were  before.  I"  am 
compelled  to  give  it  up  that  they  beat  my  boy. 

1  admitted,  he  says,  that  the  question  of  infant  bap- 
tism stands  or  falls  with  the  uUnti!y  of  the  two  church- 
es; and  he  is  determined  to  hold  me  to  this  point.  \ 
have  heard  the  wind  blow  before  to-day.  Now.  if  the 
gentleman  wishes  to  debate  that  point,  I  am  willing  to 
lay  aside  every  thing  else,  and  to  risk  the  controversy 
upon  the  question  of  ider.iify  chrae.  Dare  you  meet  me 
ijpon  thatpoint  Sir?  If  he  should  agree  to  meet  me  upon 
/his,  he  will  loose  his  labor  of  love,  and  accomplish  a 
solemn  nothing;  for  if  he  should  prove  that  the  church- 
es are  identically  the  same,  he  Vvill  only  run  himself  in- 
to Quakerism,  and  be  compelled  to  deny  Christian  bap- 
tism altogether;  for  he  knows,  or  ought  to  know,  that 
no  infant  or  adult  was  ever  baptized  into  the  Father, 
Son,  and  iSpirit,  in  the  Jewish  church.  Now,  if  thtj 
churches  are  identically  the  same,  does  it  not  follow, 
that  no  one  should  be  baptized  into  these  names  now':" 
I  do  not  oppose  his  identity,  because  I  suppo-se  it  favors: 
infant  baptism,  but  because  it  is  a  s' binder  upon  the 
Christian  church — a  falsehood,  contradicted  again  and 
again  in  the  Bible. 

As  proof  of  his  identity,  he  quotes  the  passage,  -'The 
?{ingdom  shall  be  taken  from  this  people,  and  given  rai- 
to  another  people,  bringing  forth  the  first  fruit  thereof."' 
''The  kingdom  in  the  bible  does  not  always  mean  ihe 
a^ame  thing.     Nine  times  out  of  ten  a  part  is  taken   foi* 


I'^'-j  DEBATE  ON  UAPHi-ifif 

the  whole.  The  word  Ungdom  is  not  identical  with  the 
word  church.  Church  always  means  the  same  thing — 
viz:  a  congregation  of  peopl:';  but  kingdom  sometimes 
means  one  thing  and  sometimes  another.  When  the 
Prophet  said  "The  iirne  come  that  the  saints  possessed 
the  kingdom,'^  he  does  not  mean  that  the  time  come 
when  the  saints  possessed  themselves.  Nor  does  he  mean 
that  the  time  come  that  the  saints  possessed  the  Kin)>, 
Constitution,  or  laws  of  the  kingdom  for  they  had  th^m  be- 
fore that  tini'.  But  he  means  the  time  come  when 
tiiey  possessed  the  Territory  of  the  khigdom.  Here  a 
'j  jrt  is  taken  for  the  whole.  When  Christ  says,  "Thn 
KLiigdom  of  heaven  shall  be  likened  unto  ten  virgins/' 
part  "ici.sY?,''  and  part  ''foolish  j^  he  does  not  mean  the 
King,  Constitution,  Territory,  or  laws  of  the  Kingdom; 
but  the  subje  is  of  the  kingdom  were  part  wise  and  part 
faolish.  Here  the  Kingdom  is  used  in  the  sense  of  the 
ciiurch — it  means  the  prnph.  A  part  here  is  also  taken 
lor  the  whole.  When  Christ  said,  "The  kingdom  of 
j.eaven  is  a;?2o?zo-you,"  he  did  not  mean  subjects  or  ter- 
ritory of  the  f'Jngdom,  but  the  King,  Constitution,  and 
laws  were  there  among  them.  Here  again^  a  part  i> 
taken  for  the  whole. 

Now,  when  Christ  says,  "The  kingdom  shall  be  taken 
from  thispeoj)hr  he  does  not  mean  that  '•Hh'.s  neiplc,^^  who 
were  the  Jewish  church  shall  be  taken  from  thmsdv'S, 
but  he  means  that  the  Ki?ig  will  forsake  "this  people;" 
and  the  constitution  and  laws  shall  be  taken  from  Miv 
ycopk — this  church,  and  shall  be  given  to  another  peoph^ 
— another  church,  bringing  forth  the  fnzit  thereof  A 
church  is  composed  of  y^o/>/^,  and  how,  I  ask,  can  Mr. 
Terrell,  make  "Mw  people,''^  and  the  ''o/hcr  people,"'  one 
and  the  sojne  people? 

He  quoted  a  passage  or  rather  quoted  at  a  passage, 
in  the  13th  chapter  of  Luke;  for  he  said  he  did  not 
kMow  where  it  was,  but  he  would  find  it  if  1  disputed 
that  there  was  any  such.  "A  certain  man,"  says  the 
passage,  "had  a  fig-tree  planted  in  his  vineyard,  and 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  l-M 

came  and  sought  fruit  thereon,  and  found  none.  Then 
said  he  unto  the  the  dresser  of  his  vineyard,  Behold 
these  three  years  I  come  seelvini^:  fruit  on  this  fig-tree. 
and  find  none:  why  cumhreth  it  the  ground?  After 
repeating  a  part  of  this  passage,  Mr.  Terrell  exclaim- 
ed, "^  clear  proof  this,  of  infant  membership.''^  Well. 
well;  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  what  does  the  man 
mean?  Who  in  all  the  world,  exceptMr.  Terrell,  would 
ever  have  thought  of  an  infant,  while  reading  that 
parable.^  He  must  have  intended  to  make  a  kind  of 
syilo^isnL  of  it  thus: — A  certain  man  had  a  fig-tree  plan- 
ted in  his  vineyard.  But  three  years  he  was  seeking 
fruit  on  it  and  found  none.  Therefore  infants  are  pro- 
per subjects  of  baptism.     This  is  '-^clear proof  ''  certainly. 

He  tells  you  that  1  have  failed  to  tell  what  advan- 
tage there  \vas  iii  circumcision.  The  Jews  once  asked 
Paul  the  same  question  and  he  answered  them  in  the 
3d  of  Romans  in  the  following  language.  "Much  ev- 
ery way:  chicjhj  because  that  unto  them"  (the  circum- 
cised) -'were  committed  the  oracles  of  God."  I  hope 
my  Jew'sh  friend  will  be  satisfied  with  this  answer  of 
Paul  to  his  old  fleshly  Jewish  brethren. 

He  says,  if  1  deny  that  the  covenant  concerning 
Christ  was  confirmed  by  circumcision,  I  cannot  tell  how 
it  was  confirmed.  J  have  already  given  two  good  rea- 
sons, why  it  could  not  have  been  confirmed  by  circum- 
cision. 1st,  circumcision  was  a  separate  and  distinct 
covenant  of  itself — '-a  covenant  in  the  flesh."'  2nd,  The 
covenant  concerning  Chri.st  "confirmed,"  Paul  says. 
'■four  hunaud  and  ihirfy  yaars  before  the  law."  Now 
it  is  a  fact,  that  circumcision  was  given  only  four  liun- 
(tred  and  six  years  before  the  law.  vSo  it  follows,  that 
it  could  not  have  been  confirmed  by  circumcision,  for 
it  was  confirmed  twenty-four  years  before  circumcision 
was  given. 

But  as  a  third  reason,  I  will  show  what  Mr.  Terrell 
.«iays  I  cannot  show,  how  it  was  oonfirmed.  Paul  to 
the  Hebrews,  6th  chapter,  speaks  of  this  very  covenant 


138  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

concerning  Christ,  and  says,  that  '•  Cod  confirmed  it  by 
AN-  OATH. '  J.  hope  Mr.  Terrell  will  now  be  satilied  that 
it  was  not  coniirmed  by  circumcision. 
i;/He  has  changed  his  ground  four  times— has  taken 
four  new  positions  upon  the  point,  whether  we  are 
admitted  into  the  church  by  baptism,  or  hot.  His 
///•o<;  position  was,  that  infants  are  baptized  into  the 
churcli.  His  second  was,  that  they  are  baptized  be- 
cause they  are  in  the  church.  Hif?  third  was,  that 
they  are  baptized  to  prove  that  they  are  in  the  church. 
And  in  his  last  speech  he  told  us,  that  they  are, bap- 
tized i/ito  church  relations.  Here  are  four  different 
positions.  Which  does  he  believe  ?  At  9  o'clock  this 
morning,  he  was  a  Methodist,  bringing  them  into  the 
^ihurch  by  baptism.  At  12  o'clock,  he  was  a  Jew.,  bring- 
ing them  into  the  church  by  natural  birth.  But  at  2 
o'clock,  he  is  trying  to  be  a  Methodist  again,  for  he  now 
brings  them  into  the  church  relations  by  baptism. 
Men  sometimes  change. 

Mr,  Terrell  started  out  in  a  great  glee,  and  said,  "  I 
will  now  prove  that  infants  were  members  of  the 
church,  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  "But,'-  said  he, 
'•  before  I  do  this,  I  must  recapitulate  my  arguments.*' 
I  was  looking  with  both  eyes,  and  all  my  might  for  the 
proof,  but  before  1  saw  it,  he  took  his  seat  to  rest  one 
half  hour.  He  reminds  me  of  the  Irishman  who  went 
off  two  hundred  yards,  and  ran  with  all  his  might,  to 
get  a  good  start  tojumpover  a  fence,  but  when  he 
came  to  the  fence,  he  sat  down  and  rested  before  he 
jumped.  I  will  attend  to  his  proof  when  it  comes. 
Meanwhile,  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  (|ues- 
lion  of  identity  again. 

Paul  to  the  Hebrews,  3rd  chapter,  calls  the  Jewish 
church,  "  the  house  of  Moses,"  and  the  Christian  church, 
•  the  house  of  Christ."  Are  these  two  houses,  one  and 
the  same  house,  Mr,  Terrell  ?  As  well  might  you  say, 
that  my  house,  and  my  neighbor's  ham,  are  one  and 
the  same  house,  and  used  for  the  same  purpose. 


AND  THE  UOLY  SPIRIT.  1S3 

Mi\  Terrell  has  hinted  several  times  to  day,  in  con- 
nection with  identity,  that  baptism  has  come  in  the 
;)lace  of  circumcision.  1  will  now  give  a  few  reasons 
which  go  to  show  that  cannot  be  true. 

1.  Cii-cumcision  was  administered  to  males  only:  its 
substitute  then  should  be  confined  to  males  only. 

'2.  Circumcision  required  not  faith  in  its  subject. 
Baptism  therefore  ought  not  to  require  faith  in  its 
subject. 

3.  Circumcision  was  administered  according  to  law 
on  the  eighth  day.  Its  substitute  then  should  be  ad- 
ministered on  the  eighth  day. 

4.  Circumcision  was  administered  hy  parents,  not  hy 
priests.  Baptism,  its  substitute,  ough't  likewise  to  be 
aclministered  by  parents,  not  by  priests,  ovxlergy. 

5.  Circumcision  was  a  marR  made  upon,  not  the  face 
of  the. subject.  Baptism.,  its  substitute,  ought  not  to 
be  performed  on  the  face  of  the  subject. 

6.  Circumcision  was  not  a  duty  binding  upon  the 
child,  but  upon  the  parents;  it  was  an  act  of  the  pa- 
rent, the  subject  was  passive.  Baptism,  therefore,  is 
not  a  duty  of  the  subject,  but  of  the  parents;  it  is  the 
parent's  act,  the  subject  is  passive. 

7.  Circumcision  vvas  administered  to  all  a  man's 
slaves,  all  born  in  his  house  and  bought  with  his  mo- 
ney. Baptism,  therefore,  ought  to  be  administered  to 
all  the  slaves  of  a  householder,  as  well  as  his  own  seed. 

8.  Circumcision  required  no  piety  in  the  parent  to 
entitle  his  child  to  this  ordinance  ;  neither  faiih  nor 
piety  was  ever  required  of  a  parent  to  entitle  his  child 
to  circumcision.  Piety  nor  faith  ought  not  then  to  be 
demanded  as  necessary  in  parents  to  the  baptism  of 
their  children. 

9.  Circumcision  imported  that  its  subject  was  enti- 
tled to  all  the  promises  made  to  Abraham  concerning 
his  natuial  seed.  Baptism  its  substitute,  therefore,  im- 
ports that  its  subject  is  entitled  to  a  share  in  ail  the 
temporal  blessings  promised  to  the  seed  of  Abraham. 


HO  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

10.  Circumciyion  was  a  token  or  sign  in  the  flesh  of 
the  covenant  made  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Gen- 
esis ;  baptism,  therefore,  is  a  token,  or  sign  in  the  flesh, 
of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  in  the  seven- 
teenth chapter  of  Genesis. 

11.  Circumcision  was  not  to  be  performed  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  Baptism, 
its  substitute,  is,  therefore,  not  to  be  performed  in  these 
names. 

12.  Circumcision  was  identified  with  the  law  oi 
Moses,  (John  vii.  23,)  and  shared  the  same  fate.  Bap- 
tism is,  therefore,  identified  with  the  law  of  Moses,  and 
must  share  the  sam.e  fate. 

13.  Circumcision  has  come  to  such  a  crisis,  that  wljo- 
soever  is  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  him  nothing. 
Baptism,  its  substitute,  will  also  come,  or  has  come,  to 
such  a  crisis,  that  whosoever  is  baptized,  Christ  shall 
profit  him  nothing. 

14.  Circumcision  did  not  exempt  one  of  the  Jews 
from  baptism,  when  he  believed  in  Christ.  Baptism. 
its  substitute,  ought  not,  therefore,  to  exempt  a  believer 
from  being  baptized  again  and  again. 

Here  are  some  arguments  against  identity,  and 
against  the  notion  ot  Mr.  Terrell,  that  baptism  is  a 
substitute  for  circumcision,  which  have  not,  and  never 
can  be  met  by  my  worthy  friend.  If  he  thinks  he  can 
move  them,  and  wishes  you  to  see  his  failure,  let  him 
apply  his  moving  powers  to  them  in  all  their  strength. 
l^  he  should  fail  to  remove  these  difficulties  out  of  his 
way,  his  infant  sprinkling  must  suffer  the  consequences- 
of  his  failure. 

In  the  remaining  part  of  my  reply,  I  wish  to  ex- 
amine the  command  ot  Christ,  and  the  practice  of  thf- 
Apostles,  to  see  how  they  bear  upon  the  subject  before 
us — to  see  whether  they  require  the  baptism  of  be- 
lievers only,  or  the  baptism  of  believers,  unbelievers, 
infants,  and  all.  The  practice  of  the  Apostles  is  cer- 
tainly good  authority  for  us  to  go  and  do  likewise. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  Hi 

The  commission  which  Christ  gave  to  the  Apostles, 
'•eads,  "  He  that  behevclh,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be 
>aved  ;"  not  he  who  was  baptized  in  infancy,  and  af- 
terwards believes,  but  "  he  that  bclievcth  first,  and  is 
then  baptized,  shall  be  saved."  This  not  only  author- 
izes the  Apostles  to  baptize  believers,  but  it  forbids 
them  to  baptize  any  but  believers.  Let  Mr.  Terrell 
show  that  it  does  not  if  he  can. 

We  go  up  to  Jerusalem  with  the  Apostles,  and  when 
the  Jews,  the  members  of  the  Jewish  church,  had  heard 
rrom  the  lips  of  Peter  that  Christ  was  "Lord  of  all," 
hey  "said  unto  Peter  and  the  rest  of  the  Apostles, 
Men  and  brethren,  what  shall  v\e  do."  They  were  not 
infants,  or  they  could  not  have  heard  and  spoke  in  this 
way.  Peter  said,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  evei-y  one 
of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ ;"  and  it  is  added, 
"They  Xh.dit  gladly  rcaivcd  hi <  word  were  baptized." 
Here  the  Apostles  baptized  such,  and  such  only,  as 
gladly  received  the  words  of  Peter.  They  were  all  pen^ 
itent  believers. 

From  Jerusalem  we  will  go  down  to  the  city  of  Sa- 
maria, and  hear  Philip  preach  Christ  unto  them.  Here 
we  learn,  that  "  the  people  with  one  accord  gave  heed 
unto  those  things  which  Philip  spoke;'  and  "  wh^n^ 
tliey  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things  concerning  the 
kingdom  of  God,  and  the  name  of  Jesus  Christy  they 
were  baptized,  both  men  and  wimen  "  "  When  theybe- 
'icvedy^  not  before,  they  were  baptized."  "  Both  men 
and  women, ^^  not  infants,  were  baptized  by  Philip. 
There  were  no  habes  in  that  company,  Mr.  Terrell. 

At  Samaria,  Simon  believed,  and  was  baptized. 
Philip  preached  Christ  to  the  Eunuch,  and  when  he 
tieard,  he  said,  "  v\  hat  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized?"' 
Philip  said,  "  If  thou  hcUcvest  with  all  th.Tie  lieart,  thou 
may  est.  He  replied,  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God."  Philip  baptized  him  when  he  believed, 
and  refused  to  baptize  him,  unless  he  did  believe  first. 
"  If  thou  ^tf/jet;^5/,  thou  mayest."  Let  that  be  remen*- 
bered. 


lirj  DEBATE  ON  BAPTJSM 

Paul  heard  words  from  the  lips  ofJesus,  believed  the- 
words  which  he  heard,  repented  of  his  sins,  and  wa^ 
then  baptized.  Cornelius  and  all  his  house,  "  feared 
God,"  heard  the  word,  believed  it,  spoke  with  tonguesj 
and  were  ^/^c/i  baptized.  Lydia  heard  the  word,  her' 
heart  was  Qpciied,  and  she  was  then  baptized.  The 
Jailer  and  his  family  heard  the  word,  believed  it,  an«! 
were  then  baptized;  and  afterwards  re'joiced  in  the 
God  of  their  salvation.  The  whole  history  of  the  con- 
version of  the  Corinthians  is  told  in  these  words: — 
'^  Many  of  the  Corinthians  hearings  believed,  and  w^ere 
baptized.'''' 

Thus  we  see,  from  the  command  of  Christ,  and  the 
practice  of  the  Apostles,  that  believers,  and  believers 
only  were,  and  are,  the  proper  supjects  of  baptism 
There  Vv^as  not  one  disciple  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
but  what  obeyed  for  himself  Parents  did  not  obey 
for  them  The  Apostles  could  say,  and  did  say,  to 
them,  "  You  have  yicld-'d  your.<€lves  servants  to  obey,. 
and  have  obeyed  from  the  hearth 
Time  expired 

MR.  TERRELL'S  CLOSING  SPEECH — -2d  PRO?. 

My  Christian  friends:  I  have  arisen  before  you  to 
make  my  closing  speech  on  the  proposition  before  us, 
and,  although  my  friend.  Mr.  Pritcbard,  says  that  his 
feelings  are  not  hurt,  I  cannot  say  the  same.  If  he 
could  not  be  h\jrt  with  reilections,  such  as  he  has 
thrown  out,  all  I  can  say  is,  that  he  must  be  of  a  dif- 
ferent make  from  myself.  It  always  hurts  my  feelings 
to  have  a  person  w'hom  I  have  consented  to  debate 
with,  make  such  insinuations  to  an  audience  as  those 
to  which  I  refer.  He  says  I  am  trying  to  deceive  this 
audience,  and  that  lam  trying  to  make  this  people  be- 
lieve our  faith  is  one  thing,  when  I  know  it  is  quite  dif- 
ferent. Now  let  me  inform  this  audience  that  neither 
me  nor  my  brethren  believe  in  the  damnation  of  in- 
fants.   There  is  much  in  Mr    Wesley's  "  Doctrinal 


AND  Tin:  HOLY  SPIRIT.  H^ 

Tracts"  which  we  as  a  church  do  not  believe  nor  adopt. 
This  Mr.  Pritchard  might  have  discovered  if  he  had 
Iteon  as  cautious  about  deceiving  30U  as  he  appears 
to  be  of  my  deceiving  you.  That  our  church  does  not 
adopt  Mr.  Wesley's  remarks  in  his  Doctrinal  Tracts,  is 
clearly  seen,  from  a  note  placed  at  the  foot  of  the  page 
by  our  Conference,  which  reads  as  follows  : 

''  That  Mr.  Wesley,  as  a  clergyman  of  the  church  of 
England,  v/as  originally  a  high  churchman,  in'the  fullest 
sense,  is  well  known.  When  he  wrote  his  treatise,  in 
the  year  1756,  he  seems  still  to  have  used  some  expresr 
sions,  in  relation  to  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regen- 
eration, whi -h  we  at  this  day  should  not  prefer.  Some 
such,  in  the  judgment  of  the  reader,  may  perhaps  be 
found  under  this  second  head.  This  last  sentence, 
however,  contains  a  guarded  corrective.  It  explains 
also  the  sense  in  which  we  believe  Mr.  Wesley  in- 
tended much  of  what  goes  before  to  be  understood"' 
Doct.  ■  Tracts,  page  249. 

Now  with  this  plain  note  before  his  eyes,  Mr.  Pritch- 
ard represents  us  as  believing  in  infant  damnation  ! 
And  then,  accuses  me  of  trying  to  deceive  !  I  thought 
it  necessary  to  set  this  matter  right  before  I  should  pro- 
ceed, and  more  especially  as  this  is  my  closing  speech 
on  this  proposition,  so  that  I  can  say  nothing  about 
it  hereafter. 

Mr.  Wesley's  "  Doctrinal  Tracts,"  we,  as  a  church, 
do  not  believe  or  adopt.  We  only  publish  them  a.s. 
we  do  other  tracts  or  books,  thinking  the  major  part  to 
be  good,  and  should  be  read.  I  wished  to  show  by  the 
note  which  I  have  just  read  in  your  hearing,  that  the 
gentleman  has  misrepresented  us,  and  that  he  has 
misrepresented  Mr.  Wesley's  views.  Mr.  Wesley  was 
in  England,  and  he  was  a  highc'rarchman,  and  had  his 
peculiarities,  and  his  own  notions,  but  in  the  main 
they  were  good.  I  hope  this  will  suffice  on  this  point. 
I  will  observe  further,  however,  that  I  have  not  come 
here  to  defend  Mr.  Wesley,  nor  have  I  come  here  ta 


144  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

reply  to  the  gentleman's  affirmations,  although  he 
thought  me  oil'  from  the  controversy.  I  shall  stick 
'.:lose  enough  to  the  controversy  for  his  comfort  I  as* 
?iure  you. 

1  shall  now  prove  that  there  were  children  in  the 
New  Testament  churches.  This  I  shall  do  by  a  direct 
reference  to  the  word  of  God.  Paul  commanded  chil- 
dren to  obey  their  parents.  Hear  his  language  : — 
^'  Children  obey  your  parents."  Eph.  0:  1.  It  is  true, 
we  are  not  told  here  that  they  were  baptized  ;  but  they 
were  in  the  church,  and  they  could  not  have  been  in 
it  withont  being  baptized.  This  is  then,  a  most  clear 
and  unanswerable  argument  on  my  side  of  the  ques- 
tion. These  children  were  not  yet  brought  up,  but 
the  parents  are  commanded  to  bring  them  up  in  the 
nurture  and  admonitions  of  the  Lord,  or  to  bring  them 
up  in  the  correction  and  instruction  of  the  Lord.  Thi? 
is  to  be  done  under  the  government  of  the  Lord,  which 
cannot  be  only  in  the  church..  This  is  according  to  the 
good  book,  which  says,  "  Train  up  a  child  in  the  v/ay 
he  should  go,  and  when  he  is  old  he  will  not  depart 
from  it."  The  order  of  the  Lord  is  to  train  up  a  child 
in  the  church,  and  it  is  commanded  to  obey  its  parents, 
and  its  .parents  are  commanded  to  bring  it  up  in  the 
nurture  and  admonitions  of  the  Lord.  Mr.  Pritchard 
would  have  you  bring  your  children  up  in  the  world. 
His  language  would  be  :  train  them  up  in  the  world  : 
but  I  say,  train  them  up  in  the  churcli. 

The  gentleman  talks  about  adults  having  faith. — - 
There  is  no  dispute  between  us  on  this  point;  but  for 
fear  he  will  represent  me  as  the  running  Irishman  that 
was  going  to  jump  the  fence  and  rested  before  jumping 
1  wnll  proceed  with  my  argument. 

In  the  first  place  I  will  call  your  attention  to  Col.  '20: 
•21.  "Children  obey  your  parents  in  all  things;  for  this 
is  well  pleasing  unto  the  Lord.  Fathers  provoke  not 
your  children  to  anger  lest  they  be  discouraged."  Here 
you  see  the  children  are  spoken  of  too,  and  I  wish  yoii 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  145 

to  notice  another  thing,  and  that  is,  that  they  were  ut 
obey  IN  THE  Lord  and  not  out  of  phm.  I  call  your  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  obedience  is  in  the  Lord  and  not 
out  of  him;  and  they  are  to  be  brought  up  in  the  nur- 
ture and  discipline^  or  government  of  the  Lord.  Yet 
the  gentleman  would  have  our  children,  our  precious 
offspring  kept  out  of  the  Lord.  As  I  quoted  before,  in 
Proverbs  we  are  informed  that  if  we  w'lW  bring  up  a 
child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  when  he  is  old  he  will 
not  depart  from  it.  Yes,  my  Christian  friends,  children 
are  to  be  brought  up  in  the  church,  and  not  out  of  it 
as  the  gentleman  would  say. 

When  children  are  old  enough  to  hear  the  word  ar.d 
come  in  themselves,  of  course  the}''  have  a  right  to  do 
so,  and  when  they  are  not  old  enough  to  come,  if  they 
have  believing  parents,  it  is  their  duty  to  bring  them  to 
Christ,  and  give  them  up  to  the  Lord  in  baptism,  and 
then  bring  them  up  in  the  Lord. 

I  know  the  kingdom  has  some  variety  in  it.  This  i^ 
clear  from  the  parable  of  the  virgins,  concerning  whi;'k 
I  will  read  you  from  the  teaching  of  our  Savior; 

''Then^ shall  the  kingdom  of  heaven  be  likened  unto 
ten  virgins,  which  took  their  lamps,  and  went  forth  to 
meet  the  bridegroom.  And  five  of  them  were  wise 
and  five  were  foolish.  They  that  were  foolish  took 
.no  oil  with  them:  but  the  wise  took  oil  in  their  vesseis 
with  their  lamps.''  This  represented  a  church  of  which 
children  were  member^^  very  clearly. 

Titus  and  Timothy  were  writren  to  within  som<-.) 
thirty  years  after  the  gospel  was  preahced,  and  in  these 
letters  oldmen  and  young  men  are  spoken  of.  Fathe;- 
and  mothers  are  also  mentioned.  Mr.  P  would  have 
interesting  distinctions  truly!  If  there  were  noinfanis 
in  the  church,  why  designate  old  men  and  young  men, 
fathers  and  mothers  &c?  Will  Mr.  Pritchard  give  us 
an  instance  of  an  adult  child  being  baptized?  We 
have  found  where  the  baptism  of  house-holds  is  spoken 
of,  and  v/here  children  were  members  of  the  churcli. 
J 


110  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

P^r.  Pritchard  triumphaTitly  asks,  where  it  is  recorded 
in  the  bible,  tli.at  infants  were  baptized.  But  I  ask 
him  to  show  whore  an  adnit  child  was  baptized.  There 
is  not  one  sr.ch  place  in  ail  the  bible.  No  my  christian 
friends,  there  is  not  one  place  where  it  speaks  of  an 
adult  child  being  baptized  in  all  the  bible.  He  cannot 
show  us  where  a  youth  believed  and  was  baptized. — 
Why  then  ask  where  infant  baptism  is  spoken  of? 

But  no  one  can  doubt  but  infants  were  embraced  in 
the  covenat  and  were  circumcised.  Then,  let  the  pas- 
sage be  produced  that  excludes  them  from  the  churcli. 
Yet,  although  all  admit  that  children  were  circumcised^ 
i  cannot  find  one  mentioned  for  several  hundred  years 
before  Jeremiah.  Yet,  i  say,  all  admit  that  they  were 
circumcised  during  that  period.  yThen,  is  it  strange 
that  the  reception  of  children  or  young  men  is  not  spo- 
ken of  in  the  New  Testament?  Surely  not.  It  was 
not  necessary  that  it  should  be  mentioned.  I  say  if  I 
should  admit  that  it  is  not  spoken  of  in  all  the  New- 
Testament;  it  is  not  strange  but  I  have  showed  that  in- 
fant membersliip  is  spoken  of  at  least  from  plain  infer- 
ence. 

But  I  see  that  my  tim.e  is  fast  passing  away,  and  I 
must  hasten  to  recapitulate  my  arguments,  "i  he  cove- 
nant spokc)n  of  Gen.  12,  15,  and  17th  chapters,  I  admit- 
ted is  mixed  up  with  temporary  promises;  yet  it  is  the 
satoe  covenant  that  is  spoken  of  in  each  of  these  pla- 
ces, and  was  conlirmed  before  fn  Christ.  The  fou r hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  v/ere  before  the  covenant,  and 
and  not  before  its  confirmation.  Now  confirmation 
£ind  established  means  the  same  thing.  That  which 
was  confirmed  was  established,  and  that  which  was 
csthblished  was  confirmed.  He  c.^mnot  prove  that  this 
is  a  new  covenant  It  is  said  that  the  time  shall  come 
when  all  shall  know  me  from  the  least  to  the  greatest. 
We  are  the  children  of  wrath,  yet  are  embraced  in  the 
redeeming  scheme  of  man. 

(Here  Mr.  Terrell  enquired  how  much  time  he  [)a.d.\ 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIf.  147 

My  second  argument  was  on  the  express  words  of 
the  Savior,  which  read  as  follows:  'Of  such  istheking- 
dom  of  heaven."  This  he  said  of  'Hi'tic  children,''  of 
infants.  You  remember  my  argument  on  this  passage. 
My  time  is  so  short  that  I  cannot  repeat  it. 

My  third  argument  was  founded  upon  the  commission 
"Go  ye  thereibre  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them."' 
jVow  remember  that  our  Savior  had  said,  "suffer  little 
children  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,  and 
when  he  gave  the  apostles  the  commissionhe  did  not 
exclude  them.  Here  was  argument  that  Mr.Pritchard 
could  not  answer. 

iMy  fourth  argument  was  founded  upon  the  house- 
hold baptisms  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament.  Heie 
it  was  shown  that  four  house-holds  are  expressly 
said  to  have  been  baptized  in  the  New  Testament.  I 
contended  that  it  was  unreasonable  that,  four  house- 
holds should  have  been  mentioned,  and  not  an  infant 
in  any  of  them.  Against  this  Mr.  Pritchard  has  done 
nothing,  and  I  conclude  he  can  do  nothing. 

My  fifth  argument  was  founded  upon  the  fiict  that 
children  did  belong  to  the  ancient  church,  and  that  dis- 
tinctions were  made,  which  would  be  unnecessary, such 
as  fatthers  and  mothers,  old  men  and  young  men  if  there 
were  no  children  in  the  first  churches 

I  have  nov/  triumphantly  sustained  my  proposition^ 
and  my  opponent  has  not  been  able  to  ansvi^er  my  ar- 
guments. No  my  chrisnan,  friends  and  they  never  can 
be  answered.  The  right  of  infants  to  membership  in 
the  church  of  God  has  been  called  in  question  for  hun- 
dreds of  of  years,  but  it  is  a  scriptural  doctrine,  and 
must  and  will  stand  in  defiance  of  all  the  assaults  that 
can  be  made  upon  it. 

The  gentleman  may  leave  his  children  out  in  the 
world  and  out  of  covenant  relation  with  God,  hut  I 
want  my  children  in  the  same  church  with  myself,  that 
1  may  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonitions  of 
the  Lord.     Christian  friends,  are  you  willing  to  leave 


148  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

your  children  in  the  world,  to  grow  up  in  sini^  or  will 
you  not  give  them  up  to  the  Lord  in  baptism? 

My  position  is  now  established,  and  ever  must  stand. 
J  know  you  are  many  of  you  convinced,  that  the  doc- 
trine I  have  advocated  is  a  scriptural  doctrine.     On  the 
other  hand,  Mr.  Pritchard  has  failed,  entirely  failed. 
(Time  expired.) 

MR.    PRITCHARD's  FIFTH  RKPLY. 

Gentlemen  Moderators: 

I  truly  and  sincerely  sympathize  with  my  friend  Mr. 
Terrell  to-day.  He  has  fearlessly,  and  I  trust  in  good 
faith,  undertaken  to  do,  what  no  man  living  or  dead 
ever  has  done — viz  :  to  prove  that  infants  v/ho  cannot 
believe,  are  required,  without  faith,  to  obey  the  com- 
mandments of  the  Lord.  I  have  called  upon  him  again 
and  again  to  produce  a  passage  in  v/hich  the  Re- 
deemer requires,  or  even  has  required,  any  one  who 
did  or  does  not  believe,  to  obey  him  without  faith.  He 
has  not,  nor  can  he  produce  any  such  passage.  The 
reason  is,  because  the  thing  is  contrary  to  reason,  to 
common  sense,  and  to  all  the  teaching  of  the  New 
Covenant.  How  can  they  obey  him  in  whom,  the}' 
have  not  believed  ? 

There  is  one  thing  of  which  I  think  now\  and  of 
which  I  may  not  think  again,  and  tliat  is,  his  chargin<i: 
me  in  a  very  rough  and  unbecoming  manner,  with 
''  smiling,  winking,  and  nodding  at  my  friends."  J  re- 
gret, gentleman,  exceedingly  regret  to  see  a  man  se 
far  forget  the  dignity  of  his  calling,  as  to  stoop  to  utter 
a  thing  so  utterly  untrue.  I  regret  it,  because  I  am 
necessarily  called  upon,  as  an  act  of  justice  to  myself, 
to  pronounce  it  untrue.  True  I  smiled,  but  not  at  Mr. 
Terrell,  his  v;-eakness  nor  his  strength,  what  he  had 
done  nor  what  he  was  doing ;  but  at  the  ludicrous  ac- 
tions of  another  person  whom  I  saw  in  the  auidence. 
But  that  I  "  nodded  and  winked  to  get  him  off  from 
the  subject,"  is  an  imputation  in  good  keeping  with 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT. 


149 


tsome  other  things  we  have  heard  from  him  in  the  last 
lew  months.  As  this  is  not  connected  with  the  dis- 
cussion, and  as  it  was  intended  as  an  attack  upon  m\ 
reputation,  I  do  not  think  that  I  am  called  upon  to 
treat  it  with  any  more  respect,  than  to  spurn  it  as  a 
graceless  and  unfounded  imputation,  and  pass  it  a> 
something  beneath  the  contempt  of  every  high-minded 
man.  If  this  had  have  been  the  first,  second,  or  even 
the  third,  attack  he  had  made  upon  ray  reputation,  i 
should,  probably,  have  passed  it  without  notice  ;  but 
enough  of  a  thing  is  enough. 

I  come  novv'  to  his  last  speech.  He  has  finally  fa- 
vored us  with  his  New  Testament  proof  for  infant 
membership.     Let  us  look  at  it  : 

'•  Children  obey  your  parents  in  the  Lord  :  for  this  i.s 
right.  Honor  thy  father  and  mother,  (which  is  the 
lirst  commandment  with  promise,)  that  it  may  be  well 
with  thee,  and  that  thou  raayest  live  long  on  the  earth. 
And  ye  fathers,  provoke  not  your  children  to  wrath: 
but  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  ol 
the  Lord."  Ephesians,  vi.  1,  4. 

That  this  passage  does  not  prove  his  position,  is 
evident,  for  the  following  reasons  : 

L  The  controversy  is  not  3.h out  children,  but  about 
iiifants.  Every  man  in  the  universe  is  the  child  of  some 
other  man  ;  but  this  is  very  different  from  saying,  eve- 
ry man  in  the  universe  is  the  infant  of  some  other  man, 
2,  When  we  speak  of  children,  in  the. sense  of  pa- 
rents and  children,  the  children  may  be  men  from 
tujenty  i:)  Jiflf/  years,  of  age.  1  am  the  child  of  my  pa- 
rents, but  not  their  litt'e  infant,  as  is  well  known. 

These  children  are  commanded  to  "  obey  their  pa- 
rents." JSlovv,  if  they  were  old  enough  to  understand 
this  command  of  Paul,  -and  old  enough  to  understand 
and  "  obey  their  parents  ;"  then,  they  were  not  infants. 
as  Mr.  Terrell  supposes,  but  persons  capable  of  hear- 
ing, undersjtanding,  and  obeying  all  the  command- 
ments of  the  Lord. 


150 


DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 


4.  These  cliildren  are  commanded  to  hnnor  their  fa- 
thers and  mothers,  and  fathers  are  "  not  to  provoke  them 
to  wrathy  If  they  were  capable  of  honorins^  then*  pa- 
rents, and  of  being  "  provoked  to  wratlV'  by  the  incon- 
sistent and  unreasonable  conduct  of  their  parents,  then, 
they  were  not  infants  ;  for  infants  are  incapable  of 
these  things. 

5.  This  Epistle  was  directed,  not  to  infants,  but  to 
"  the  saints  and  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus,"  which  lan- 
guage, cannot  be  applied  to  infants,  for  they  are  not 
faithful,  in  any  sense  of  the  word  faithfid. 

6.  Mr.  Terrell  has  not  yet  proved  that  these  children 
were  members  of  the  church,  lie  has  taken  it  for 
granted,  because  they  are  mentioned  in  this  epistle 
which  was  directed  to  the  church.  It  is  not  positive, 
nor  even  probable  evidence,  that  a  man  or  any  other 
being  is  a  member  of  the  church,  simply  because  he  is 
mentioned  \n  an  epistle  directed  to  the  church.  "  Dogs," 
"' evil- workers,"  ^' the  concision,"  "the  enemies  of  the 
<^ross  of  Christ,"  "  the  Jews,"  from  whom  Paul  received 
forty  stripes,  and  even  the  "  Devil"  and  "  Satan"  are 
all  mentioned  in  the  epistles  ;  but  this  does  not  prove 
that  ail  or  any  of  them  were  members  of  the  Christian 
<:;hurch.  So  you  see,  his  positive  evidence  of  infant 
members  is,  just  no  evidence  at  all.  But  if  I  were  to 
admit  that  they  were  all  infants,  and  all  members  of 
the  church,  (vidiich  two  things  he  never  can  prove)  it 
would  be  no  proof  of //w  infant  sprinklidg  ;  for  he  has 
solemnly  declared  that  he  does  not  baptize  infants  to 
bring  them  into  the  church,  but  because  they  are  in  it 
by  natural  birth.  Now  if  infants  are  in  the  church 
and  in  it,  not  by  baptism,  but  by  natural  birth,  the 
tact  of  their  being  in  the  church  no  more  proves  that 
they  are  to  be  baptized,  than  it  proves  that  they  are  to 
baptize  others.  It  would  have  been  better  for  Mr.  Ter- 
rell not  to  have  renounced  the  principles  of  his  party, 
—better  for  him  to  have  been  a  Methodist  all  day,  and 
baptized  infants  into  the  Church,  as  all  Methodists  do. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  151 


In  reply  to  my  exposition  of  the  passage,  Tiie  king- 
i\om  shall  be  taken  from  this  people,  and  given  to  an- 
other people,  bringing  forth  the  fruit  thereof,"  he  said, 
the  kingdom  means  the  trigii  of  God  in  the  heart. — 
Well,  then,  God  will  cease  to  reign  in  the  heart  of  th(i 
Jewish  church,  and  will  reign  in  the  heart  of  a  better 
people — a  better  church.  How  does  this  prove  the 
idcntitij  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches? 

But  he  wants  to  know,  if  ever  there  was  an  adult 
<^hild,  baptized  by  the  apostles,  who  was  raised  by 
Christian  parents?  I  answer,  no,  nor  an  infant  child 
either.  The  reason  is^  there  were  no  Christian  parents 
before  the  Apostles  to  '^  raise  adult  ch'iMreii'\{ov  them 
to  baptize.  There  were  thousands  of  adults,  reared  by 
Jewish,  and  Gentile  parents,  who  were  baptized  by  the 
Apostles.  Mr.  Terrell  must  regard  this  question  as  a 
<[uestion  oi^ power;  for  it  is  certainly  a y;o?/;fr/ii/ question 
to  ask  for  ClirUlian  parents  before  the  days  of  the 
Apostles. 

In  the  15th  chapter  of  the  Acts  is  a  passage  on  which 
Mr.  Terrell  relies  for  proof  of  identity  :  "  After  this  I 
will  return,  and  build  again  the  tabernacle  of  David 
which  is  fallen  down.*'  The  tabernacle,  he  says,  is 
the  Jewish  church  which  had  fallen  down;  and  the 
J^ord  promised  to  return  and  build,  not  a  new,  but  the 
same  old  church.  Mr.  Terrell  says,  this  passage  pro  Yes 
the  identity  of  the  two  churches.  But  what  does  the 
Apostle  say  it  proves?  Hear  him  :  "  Simeon  hath  df- 
•elared  how  God  at  the  first  did  visit  the  Gentiles,  '.9 
take  out  of  t'lem  a  people  for  his  nrnne.  And  to  this  agree 
THE  WORDS  of  tlic  prop/ic's;  as  it  is  written,  After  this  I 
will  return,  and  will  build  again  the  talvcrnacle  of  Da- 
vid which  is  fallen  down."  How  the  Apostles,  and 
the  great  men  of  modern  times  do  differ!  James  said, 
as  the  connection  siiows,  that  this  passage  proved  the 
salvation  of  the  Gentiles,  without  obedience  to  the  lav*/ 
of  Moses.  But  Mr.  Terrell  says,  it  proves  that  the 
J-swish   and  Christian    churches    are   identically   the 


152  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

isame.  That  is,  Mr.  Terrell  says,  it  proves  that  the- 
Jewish  and  Christian  people  are  identically  the  same. 
But  the  Apostle  says,  in  opposition  to  Mr.  Terrell,  and 
his  Jewish  brethern  then  at  Jerusalem,  it  proves  that 
the  Christians  are  not  Jews,  and  are  not,  therefore,  t(> 
live  as  Jevi's.  I  am  simple  enough  to  believe  tht 
Apostle  rigl.rt  and  Mr.  Terrell  wrong. 

'J'he  covenant  in  llebrev/s,  8th  chapter,  was  made, 
not  with  another  people,  he  says,  but  with  "  the  house 
of  Israel ;"  which  proves  the  identity  of  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  churcbs.  The  difficulty  with  Mv.  Terrell  hert 
is,  he  seems  not  to  have  observed  that  there  is  an  Is- 
rael according  to  the  spirit,  as  well  as  an  Israel  ac- 
cording to  the  Jlesk,  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament. 
Before  the  days  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  natural  seed  of  A- 
braham  were  regarded  as  the  true  Israel  of  God  ;  but 
when  they  rejected  the  Redeemer,  the  Lord  rejected 
them,  and  they  ceased  to  be  called  Israel  :  "  They  are 
not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel,'  said  Paul,  "  but  in 
Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called."  None  but  "  the  chil- 
dren of  the  prumisfi  are  counted  for  the  seed,"  or  re- 
garded as  the  Israel  of  Crod.  Rom.,  9th  chap.,  7,  8. 
The  natural  seed  weie  formerly  called  the  circumci- 
sion ;  but  they  arc  not  now  the  circumcision  :  "  For  m- 
are  the  circumcision,  who  worship  God  in  the.  spirit, 
and  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in  the 
FLi:sH,"  as  Mr.  Terrell  and  his  Jewish  — fleshly  brethren 
have.  Phil.  3:  3.  The  fleshly  seed  tire  not  now  Jews  : 
"  For  he  is  hot  a  Jew,  which  is  one  outwardly;"  (in- 
was  formerly  a  Jevv%  but  things  have  changed) '- nei- 
ther is  that  circumci.^ion,  which  is  outward  in  the  Jl'sh;" 
(that  was  circumcision  among  the  fleshly  seed,  or  in 
the  Jewish  church)  "but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  in- 
wardly ;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart;  in  thr 
spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter."  Rom.  2d,  chap.  28,  29. 
Christians  are  then,  the;  true  Jews,  the  true  circumcision , 
and  the  true  Israel  of  Grod  ;  and  with  this  "  house  o\ 
Israel,"  is  the  new,  and  everlasting  covenant  made.-  - 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  153 

Let  that  be  remembered.  So  far  then,  from  proving 
the  identity  of  the  churches,  this  passage  puts  it  be- 
yond doubt  that  the}^  are  not  the  same.  Now  unless 
it  can  be  shown  that  Israel  according  to  the  flesh,  and 
Israel  according  to  the  spirit,  are  one  and  the  same  Is- 
rael, it  never  can  be  shown  that  the  two  churches  are 
one  and  the  same  church.  Bat  Paul  says,  the  two  Is- 
raels are  not  the  same;  and,  therefore,  the  two  churches 
are  not  the  same  church. 

His  first  argument  for  identity  was,  that  the  Jewish 
and  and  Christian  churches  are  one  and  the  same,  be- 
cause they  are  both  called  by  the  same  name.  That  is, 
a  Yankee  clock  and  a  singing  rmist'T  are  one  and  the 
same  thing,  because  they  are  both  called  time-keepers 
— they  both  keep  time. 

His  second  argument  was,  that  the  two  are  one  and 
the  same,  because  the  Christian  church  has  a  new  name 
— it  is  called  by  the  Christian  name.  That  is,  the  two 
are  one  and  the  same,  because  they  have  the  same 
name;  and  then,  again,  they  are  one  and  the  same  be- 
cause they  have  not  the  same  name.  This  is  very  con- 
vincing. If  he  had  another  day  on  this  proposition,  I 
dare  say,  we  would  all  be  convinced  of  hi.^;  identity  by 
such  powerful  arguments. 

His  third  proof  for  identity  was  the  language  of  Paul, 
ia  Ephesians,  2nd  chapter,  where  he  says,  "  Christ  has 
broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition  between 
Jews  and  Grentiles  ;  to  make  in  himself  Oi  the  tivnin  one 
new  man:  that  he  might  reconcile  both  unto  God  i?< 
one  b'uiy  by  the  cross," 

This  passage,  instead  of  proving  the  identity  of  the 
two  churches,  puts  it  beyond  doubt,  that  it  is  a  vain 
conceit  invented  for  party  purposes.  It  is  not  the 
same  old  man,  but  Christ  makes  of  the  twain  one  new 
man, — a  new  body — a  new  church  for  God.  Who 
could  wish  for  any  thing  stronger  than  this  in  favor  of 
the  truth  ? 

His  fourth  proof  was  the  breaking  off  the  natural 


154  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

branches,  and  the  grafting  into  the  Root  or  good  Olive 
Tree,  those  which  were  wild  by  nature.  But  I  proved 
that  the  Root  or  Olive  Tree  was  not  the  Jewish  church, 
as  he  supposed,  but  th  it  it  was  Abraham  ;  and  that 
the  natural  branches,  were  not  the  natural  branches  of 
the  church,  but  of  Abraham,  the  root,  out  of  whcih 
sprang  the  natural  branches,  or  fleshly  seed.  The 
Jewish  church  was  composed  of  the  natural  branches; 
but  the  Christian  church  is  composed  of  those  who 
were  grafted  in  ;  so  they  stand,  not  by  flesh,  as  did  the 
natural  seed,  but  hy  fiii'.h.  It  was  not  the  branches  of 
the  church,  but  the  church  te/f  that  was  broken  olf 
from  him  who  produced  it.  The  natural  branches 
were  the  Jewish  church,  and  the  supernatural  or  graft- 
ed branches  were  the  Christian.  The  Jewish  church 
was  broken  off,  rejected,  ''cast  out;'''  but  the  Christian 
was  grafted  in,  received  by  faith  as  the  offspring  of  the 
root,  and  is  '•  made  in  Jesus  Christ  a  new  man — a  new 
body,  a  new  church  for  God."  I  wish  no  stronger  tes- 
timony against  identity  than  the  eleventh  of  Romans. 
I  would  willingly  risk  the  whole  controversy  upon  a 
scriptural  exposition  of  that  chapter  alone. 

His  moving  posilion,  at  the  outset,  was,  that  unbap- 
tized  infants  are  out  of  the  church  without  any  provi- 
sion for  their  eternal  well  being:  showing  himself  to 
be  a  believer  in  that  awful  sentiment  of  inlant  damna- 
tion— that  there  are  infants  in  hell  not  a  span  hn^\ 
He  then  told  you  that  I  agree-  with  him,  that  it  is  by 
baptism  that  we  enter  into  the  church.  But  when  I 
showed  that  this  agreement  of  ours  was  killing  all  hi*? 
proof  for  identity,  he  turned  Jew,  and  told  you,  that  all 
infants  enter  into  the  church  by  natural  birth;  and 
that  he  baptizes  them,  not  to  bring  them  into,  but  he- 
mu^e  they  are  in  the  church.  A  little  after  this,  he 
boasted  that  he  had  put  infants  into  the  church  by 
positive  law,  and  called  upon  me  to  put  them  out  in  the 
same  way.  He  has  put  them  into  the  church  by  na- 
tural birth,  and  yet  he  tells  you,  that  he  has  put  them 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  155 

m  by  a  positive  law.  He  has  put  them  in  by  the  posi- 
tive law  of  matrimonij,  I  suppose  he  means ;  for  this 
is  the  only  law  by  which  he  put  them  into  the  church. 

When  I  proved  that  Methodists  do  not  believe  that 
infants  enter  into  the  church  by  natural  birth,  he  com- 
mcMced  changing  back  from  a  Jew  to  a  Methodist,  and 
told  us  first,  that  he  baptized  infants  to  prove  that  they 
are  in  the  church;  and  second,  he  said,  he  baptized 
them  into  church  relations.  He  was  a  Methodist  this 
morning,  a  Jew  at  noon,  and  almost  a  Methodist  again 
this  evening.  It  is  said,  that  "  wise  men  change,  but 
fools  never  do." 

He  has  changed  his  position  so  often  upon  the  cov- 
enants, that  it  is  diflicult  to  tell  v/hat  his  position  now 
is,  or  what  he  really  believes.  His  first  position  was, 
that  the  covenant  of  circumcision  is  the  Christian  cov- 
enant. His  second  was,  that  the  covenant  concerning 
Christ  is  the  Christian  covenant.  His  third  was,  that 
the  covenant  concerning  Christ,  the  covenant  concern- 
ing the  land  of  Canaan,  and  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision are  ail  one  and  the  same  covenant.  His  fourth 
was,  that  the  covenant  concerning  Christ,  is  the  Gos- 
pel covenant,  the  covenant  concerning  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan was  an  adjunct  to  it,  and  that  this  covenant,  and 
this  adjunct  were  both  confirmed  by  circumcision.  Such 
profoundly  learned  and  logical  argumentation,  and  so 
many  consistent  positions  ought  to  convince  us  all  of 
one  thing  at  least — viz  :  that  pedobaptism  has  not,  nor 
cannot  be  proved  to  any,  except  to  those  whose  eyes 
have  been  closed  by  the  influence  of  party  purposes. 

There  is  one  more  contradiction,  which,  of  right, 
ought  to  be  numbered  among  his  many  extremely  con- 
sistent positions — viz :  That  all  infants  enter  into  the 
church  by  natural  birth,  just  as  they  enter  into  the 
world  ;  and  yet,  when  speaking  upon  the  covenant  in 
the  8th  chap,  of  Hebrews,  he  said,  that  covenant  is  not 
yet  made,  nor  will  not  be  till  all  the  world  shall  be 
Lonverted  and  brought  into  the  church.     If  all  infants  (and 


156  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

of  course  all  the  world)  are  in  the  church  by  natural 
birth,  why  does  he  speak  of  a  time  in  the  future  when 
all  the  world  shall  be  brought  into  the  church  by  con- 
Aversion  ?  Do  mankind  enter  the  church  twice,  in  two 
different  ways,  at  two  different  times?  or  does  he  mean 
by  the  time  when  all  shall  be  converted,  nothing  more 
than  the  time  when  the  last  child  of  the  world  shall  be 
born  oi  its  parents  ?  As  he  is  a  great  advocate  of  iden- 
tity, will  he  tell  us  whether  natural  birth  and  conver- 
sion are  identically  the  same? 

As  my  time  is  now  out,  I  have  not  time  to  recapitu- 
late my  arguments  against  his  pedobaptism  ;  so  Heave 
them  with  you,  standing  unanswered,  unreplied  to  by 
Mr.  Terrell. 

[Here  Mr.  Terrell  said— I  have  another  speech  upon 
this  proposition,  haven't  I?] 

Mr.  Pritchard — No  sir;  our  agreement  was,  as  the 
Rules  show,  to  debate  no  one  proposition  more  than 
five  hours. 

Mr.  Terrell — Have  we  debated  this  five  hours  ? 

My.  Pritchard — Yes,  we  debated  three  hours  before 
dinnner,  and  two  since. 

Mr.  Terrell— Well,  if  I  had  known  that  1  would  not 
be  allowed  to  make  another  speech,  I  would  have  giv- 
en my  arguments  a  little  different  turn  in  my  last. 

Mr.  Pritchard— The  gentleman  does  not  want  to 
make  another  speech,  he  only  wants  to  make  the  im- 
pression upon  his  friends,  that,  if  he  had  an  opportuni- 
ty of  speaking  again,  he  would  do  a  little  better  than 
he  has  done  for  their  cause.  It  is  all  for  effect.  Now. 
if  he  has  any  thing  better  to  off"er,  he  can  make  another 
speech,  or  as  many  as  he  pleases  ;  I  can  reply  to  any 
thing  he  can  say.  Or,  if  he  dare  not  speak'  and  have 
me  reply,  if  he  think  he  can  better  hig  eifort,  he  can 
make  a  sliort  speech  without  any  reply. 

Mr.  Terrell;  No  Sir^  if  the  time  for  the  discussion  of 
this  proposition  is  out,  I  don't  wish  to  speak  again. 

Mr.  Burress,  then  said;  I  suppose  1  am  to   blame  for 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  157 

Mr.  Terrell's  supposing  that  he  had  another  speech;  for 
I  told  him  at  dinner  that  I  thought  you  had  three  speech- 
es apiece    more  upon  this  question. 

Mr.  Pritchardsaid;  Mr.  Terrell  ought  to  have  known 
better  than  to  have  you 'Ho bame"'  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  Franklin  here  arose  and  said;  I  have  a  proposi- 
tion to  make  to  the  two  gentleman  who  are  engaged 
in  this  discussion.  There  have  been  a  number  of  per- 
sons who  have  expressed  a  desire  to  me,  that  this  dis- 
cussion should  be  published.  I  therefore  propose  to 
Mr.  Terrell  and  Mr.  Pritchard,  that  if  they  will  v/rite 
out  their  speeches  I  will  publish  the  debate  at  my  own 
expense;  and  when  it  is  published,  I  will  give  each  of 
you. jiff  1/  copies^  well  bound,  for  your  trouble. 

Mr.  Pritchard  said  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  write  out 
my  speeches,  if  Mr.  Terrell  will  agree  to  write  his. 

Mr.  Terrell  said  I  have  not  time  to  do  it;  my  numer- 
ous pressing  engagements  as  a  circuit  preacher  prevent 
my  doing  it. 

Mr.  Pritchard  said;  If  Mr.  Terrell  will  agree  to  write 
his  speeches,  I  will  pledge  myself  to  furnish  him  with 
one  of  our  best  preachers  to  travel  the  circuit  in  his 
place. 

Mr.  Terrell  said;  We  don't  thank  the  gentleman  for 
his  preachers;  when  we  want  them  we  will  send  for 
them. 

Mr.  Pritchard  said;  I  did  not  make  the  offer  for  his 
thanks,  but  for  his  accommodation. 
Time  expired. 

MR.    PRFFCHARD's    FIRST     ADDRESS 3rD    PROP. 

Gentlemen  Moderators — 

This  is  the  third  day  of  our  discussion,  and  I  am,  for 
the  second  time,  the  affirmant.  Mr,  Terrell  is  done 
with  one  of  his  affirmative  propositions ;  he  is  now, 
for  the  second  time,  on  the  negative.  If  he  will  follow 
me  to-day,  as  I  did  him  on  yesterday,  I  have  nothing 
to  fear.     My  only  fear  is,  that  he  will  manifest  a  dis- 


158  DEBATE  ON  BAFflSM 

position  to  debate  every  thing  of  which  he  can  think,, 
except  the  design  of  baptism.  The  issue  is  not  wheth- 
er faith,  repentance,  or  conversion  is  essential  to  par- 
don or  justification  ;  but  the  design  of  baptism.  Isr 
baptism  designed  for  remission  of  sins  ;  or  for  something 
else?  is  the  issue,  and  the  only  issue  to-day.  I  afFirm 
it  for  remission  of  sins.  Mr.  Terrell  denies  this,  and  of 
course  affirms,  that  it  is  designed  for  something  else. 
Mark  this:  He  will  not  dare  to  tell  you,  to-day,  what 
the  design  of  baptism  is.  The  proposition  which  Mr. 
Terrell  has  made  for  me  to  affirm,  reads  thus:  "Wher- 
ever the  Gospel  is  preached,  uater  baptism  is  essential 
to  the  pardon  of  past  sins." 

I  never  could  have  been  persuaded  to  make  such  a 
proposition  as  this  for  myself  or,  any  one  else  to  af- 
jfsrm;  for  it  is  pitiful  in  its  language,  and  contempta- 
ble  in  its  design.  The  design  of  it,  vras  not  to  fairly 
]tresent  the  issue,  nor  to  elicit  the  teaching  of  the 
New  Testament ;  but  to  enable  him  who  conceived 
the' things  by  ad  captandum  rhetoric,  to  get  rid  of  what 
tlie  New  Testament  teaches.  The  issue  is  not  whether 
baptism  every  where,  in  all  countries,  and  under  all 
circumstances  is  essential  to  pardon,  but  whether  the 
New  Testament  teaches  baptism  "  for  the  remission  of 
sins,"  or  for  something  else.  But  1  may  be  asked  by 
some  one,  why  I  accepted  of  this  proposition?  1  an- 
swer, because  it  has  been  a  standing  proposition  of 
Mr.  Terrell  for  several  years,  on  which  he  could  re- 
treat from  a  discussion  with  the  brethren.  He  would 
say  to  them,  you  must  debate  this  or  nothing,  and 
when  they  would  refuse,  he  would  proclaim  a  ^^hach- 
ouV  on  their  part.  2nd.  Because  I  knew  from  his 
course  with  others  of  my  brethren,  that  he  would  de- 
l)ate  nothing  else  ;  and  if  he  did  retreat,  1  intended  to 
leave  him  without  excuse.  3rd.  Because  I  knew  that 
thsre  was  no  danger  in  debating  this  or  any  thing  else 
with  Mr.  Terrell ;  I  heard  him  preach  .several  times  be- 
fore I  accepted  of  this  proposition.     4th.  I  knew  that  1 


Afm  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  I5f> 

would  have  the  right,  in  the  discussion,  of  dcHnivg 
the  ternivS  of  my  own  proposition,  and  telling  what  I 
inean  by  each  and  all  of  them  ;  which  I  will  now  pro- 
ceed to  do. 

By  the  word   "  icherevc?-'^  I   mean  every  where, — in 
every  nation,  language,  tongue,  and  people  where  the 
Gospel  is  preached.     "  The  Gospel"  consists  of  three 
facts,  three  commondments,  and  three  promises      The 
facts,  as  set  forth  by  the  Apostles,   are,   The  Deaths 
The   Bunal,  and  The  Resurrection    of  Jesus   Christ. 
The  Commandments  are,  faith,  repentance,  and  bap- 
tism into  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.     The  promises  are, 
the  remission  of  sins,  the  gift  of  the   Holy  Spirit,  and 
the  hope  of  eternal  life.     No  man  can  be  scrvptiiraVy 
constituted  a  Christian,  without  believing  the  facts  of 
the  Gospel  with  all  his  heart,  obeying  from  the  heart 
the  commandments,  and  receiving  into  his  heart  the 
promises.      A  good  man  he   may  be,  honest,  upright, 
and  moral  ;  and  also  useful  in  his  day  and  generation  ; 
but  a  Christian,  in   a.  Scriptural  sense,  he  cannot  be, 
mithout  believing  and  obeying  the  whole  Gospel  of  Je- 
sus Christ.     Nor  do  I  believe  that  the  Gospel  is  preach- 
ed, in  any  nation,   language,  or  country,  unless  the 
whole  Gospel  is  preached.    He  who  preaches  the  facts 
v/ithout    the    commandments,   or  the  commandments 
without  the  facts,  does   not   preach  the   Gospel — the 
Gospei  is  not  preached  unless  all  the  facts,  command- 
ments, and  promises  are  fairly,  clearly,  and  fully  set 
forth,     i  do  not  affirm  any  thing  in  reference  to  any 
stict  or  parly,  in  any  country  or  nation  where  the  Gos- 
pel, as  I  have  now  defined  it,  is  not  preached  ;  but  I  do 
affirm,  and  fearlessly   affirm,  that  he  who  hears   the 
facts,  commandments,  and  promises  of  the  Gospel  fair- 
ly and  fully  preached,  and  then,  wilfully  and  knowing- 
ly refuses  to  obey  the  commandments,  or  any  of  them, 
or  will  say,  as  Methodi^-ts  sometimes  say,  *'  If  I  cant 
Ifo  to  heaven  without  being  baptized,  1  won't  go  at 
LiU,"  is  unjustified,  unsanctified,  unsaved,  and  must  antl 


.160  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

will,  if  not  changed  in  heart,  ultimately  be  damned. 
*'  If  I  can't  go  to  heaven  without  being  baptized,  I 
won't  go  at  all."  Whence  came  language  like  that, 
but  from  the  heart  of  a  rebel  against  the  Government 
of  God? 

I  saw  at  once  devices  of  Mr.  Terrell,  when  I  saw 
the  word  ^^  essentiaV^  in  both  of  the  propositions  made 
for  me  to  affirm.  He,  it  seems,  does  not  like  to 
shoulder  the  "  essentials"  in  religion,  in  a  discussion 
like  this ;  for  there  are  no  "  essentials"  in  the  proposi- 
tions which  he  made  for  himself;  they  are  all  in  the 
ones  made  lor  me.  Well,  with  me,  every  thing  in  re- 
ligion is  essential  to  something,  and  as  baptism  is  de- 
signed for  remission  of  sins,  I  fear  not  to  affirm  it  es- 
sential to  the  pardon  of  the  sins  of  ^  pi^opcr  subject  of 
baptism.  Mr.  Terrell's  design  was,  to  make  me  af- 
firm first,  that  "immersion  is  essential  to  baptism,'" 
and  then,  that  "  baptism  is  essential  to  pardon  ;"  so 
that  he  who  is  not  immersed  is  not  baptized,  and  he 
who  is  not  baptized  is  not  pardoned  ;  and  therefore,  all 
the  pious  parties  who  preach  the  Gospel,  and  practice 
sprinking  are  unpardoned  and  must  be  lost.  Infidels, 
Universalists,  and  ail  others  who  love  themselves  more 
than  they  love  God,  and  their  own  notions  more  than 
the  commandments  of  God,  Sire gifted  in  this  kind  of 
argumentation.  Let  him  try  to  pervert  the  Gospel, 
and  subvert  the  teaching  of  Christ  aiid  the  Apostles  by 
such  an  argument  as  this,  if  he  dares.  Let  him  offer 
that  kind  of  an  argument,  and  he  >vill  find  it  as  diffi- 
cult to  prove  that  Methodists  preach  the  Gospel,  as  it 
would  be  for  him  to  explain  away  the  language  of  the 
Spirit,  "  be  baptized  far  the  remission  of  sins.''  Let  him 
try  it,  if  he  wishes  to  prove  that  the  contemptible  and 
silly  anpcdotes,  so  common  among  Methodists.,  and 
which  are  told  for  the  purpose  of  working  up.  the  feel- 
ing of  the  people  at  the  expense  of  their  jinlgment,  are 
the  facts  of  the  Gospel,  by  which  the  Apostles  con- 
verted men,  and  led  them  to  the  obedience  of  faith 


.%N"D  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT*  lf»i 

^i-eX  him  try  his  favorite  sophism,  if  he  wishes  to  prove 
";hat  the  mourner's  bench,  the  class-meeting,  the  band- 
society,  and  other  items  of  the  Methodist  creed,  are  the 
commandments  of  the  Gospel  which  the  people  obeyed 
under  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles. 

I  repeat  it  again,  that  I  affirm  nothing  in  reference 
to  any  body  except  those  among  whom  the  gospel  is 
fully  preached;  and  the  Gospel  is  not  and  cannot  be 
fully  preached,  where  either  the  facts,  commandments 
\n'  promises  are  concealed  from  the  people.  Those  who 
^mderstand  the  gospel,  or  have  an  opportunity  of  un- 
ilerstanding,  but  will  not,  are  the  only  people  about 
whom  I  atiirm  any  thing;  and  are  the  only  ones  to 
whom  the  word  essential  applies.  All  of  the  untaught 
among  the  various  pedo-baptist  parties,  we  leave  with 
tiie  rest  of  mankind  to  the  mercy  of  God:  believing  as 
I  do,  that  he  will  do  ail  things  right.  I  am  persuaded 
that  there  are  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  now 
am©ng  the  numerous  and  various  parties  in  Christen- 
dom, who  would  rejoice  to  do  the  will  of  the  Redeem- 
er, if  they  only  knew  what  his  will  is.  I  am  also  per- 
suaded that  there  are  thousands  who  know  what  the 
will  of  the  Lord  is  but  are  determined  that  they  never 
will  do  it.  There  are  many,  very  many  who  read  the 
Bible  with  no  other  desire  but  to  find  the  will  of  the 
Lord,  but  they  do  not  succeed,  and  the  reason  is,  they 
know  not  where  to  begin,  where  to  end,  nor  to  whom 
the  language  of  the  Scriptures  applies.  They  know 
not  that  there  are  two  great  lessons  to  be  learned  in 
Christianity:  the  one  for  the  world,  and  the  other  for 
the  church  ; — the  one  to  teach  men  out  of  Christ  how 
to  become  Christians — the  other  to  teach  men  i?i  Christ 
how  to  live  Christians  ; — the  one  to  teach  us  hov/  to 
obtain  pardon  and  enter  the  church  here, — the  other  to 
teach  us  how  to  live  in  a  justified  state  and  enter  the 
church  hereafter.  Indeed  there  are  thousands  who 
never  heard  of  the  two  lessons  of  Christianity;  they 
knov/  not  that  such  things  are  in  the  good  Book,  a:^d 
K 


162  DEBATE  ON  BAFIiJ.'W 

consequently,  are  as  apt  to  go  to  the  law  of  Moses  to 
find  the  plan  of  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ,  as  to 
the  Gospel  of  Christ.  How  many  thousands  are  there 
no'^w,  in  our  country,  who  know  not  but  that  the  plan 
of  salvation  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  is  as  fully 
taught  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  as  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles?  Now, for  this,  many  of  them  are  not  to 
blame,  for  they  have  been  so  long  under  the  teaching 
of  their  catechism,  and  the  early  and  false  impressions 
made  upon  their  minds  by  their  parents  and  teachers, 
that  it  is  almost  impossible  for  them  to  learn  the  truth. 
Nor  have  their  religious  teachers  been  faithful  to  them^ 
for  they  have  generally  been  m-ore  concerned  about 
defending  their  parties  than  teaching  the  truth  as  it  i» 
in  Christ. 

To  prevent  any  difficulty  that,  may  arise  upon  this 
subject  in  the  discussion  of  this  proposition,  and  to  en- 
able us  to  understand  this  question,  1  will  give  you  the 
division  of  the  Scriptures  as  I  have  learned  it  of  the 
Apostles  whose  business  it  was  to  "  rightly  divide  the 
word  of  truth,"  and  give  both  to  the  world  and  the 
church  the  lesson  designed  for  them.  We  have  then, 
in  the  New  Testament,  four  books,  Matthew,  Mark, 
Lul^e,  and  John,  which  properly  contain  the  Life  of 
Jesus  Christ;  and  they  were  written  that  we  "  might 
believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  Son  of  God."'  But 
in  these  four  Books  we  find  the  greater  part  of  all  our 
duties  to  God  and  man ;  for  Jesus  was  with  his  Disci- 
ples some  three  years  or  more,  teaching  them  the 
Christian  religion,  and  preparing  them  to  go  and  teach 
the  things  they  had  learned  of  him  to  the  world.  Not- 
withstanding the  Apostles  were  Inspired  Men,  and 
spoke  as  they  were  moved  by  tlie  Holy  Spirit,  they 
were  not  allowed  by  the  Redeemer  to  teach  7nore  than 
he  had  taught  them,  as  is  evident  from  the  language  of 
the  commission  :  "  Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them,  &c.,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatso- 
ever I  have  commanded  you.'''     They  were  then,  limited, 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIEIT.  163 

in  their  teaching  to  what  he  had  commanded  them. 
The  Holy  Spirit  was  given  them,  not  to  teach  them 
new  truth?,  or  things  diftering  from  what  Christ  had 
commanded  them,  but  toj'  bring  to  their  remembrance 
ail  things  that  Christ  had  said  to  them,"  or  in  the 
language  cf  another  passage,  to  "  guide  them  into  ail 
truth." 

That  the  Apostles  did  not  teach  more  than  Christ 
commanded  them,  is  evident,  from  the  language  of 
Paul  te  the  Thessalanians,  2:  13  :  When  you  received 
the  word  of  God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it 
not  as  the  word  of  men,  but,  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word 
of  God."  To  the  Corinthians,  he  says:  "  If  any  man 
think  himself  to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him  ac- 
knowledge that  the  things  that  I  write  unto  you  are 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord."  "  You  heard  and  re- 
ceived from  us,"  he  says,  "  the  word  of  God;  and  the 
things  which  I  write  are  the  commandments  of  the 
Lord." 

We  have  in  the  New  Testament,  in  addition  to  the 
four  Books  already  mentioned,  a  Book  called  the 
•'  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  which  contains  a  faithful  his- 
tory of  the  labors  of  the  Apostles,  and  also  the  Ser- 
mons which  the  Apostles  preached  to  the  woiid^  to  show 
the  unconverted  how  to  become  Christians^  and  obtain  the 
'pardon  of  their  sins.  Now  does  not  reason,  common 
sense,  every  thing  dictate  to  us,  that  we  should  come 
to  liie  Acts,  where  alone  the  Sermons  which  the  Apos- 
tles preached  to  the  unconverted  are  ta  be  found,  to 
find  how  we  are  to  obtain  pardon  or  the  remission 
of  sins? 

The  Epistles  contain  the  second  lesson  of  Christian- 
ity, and  were  written,  not  to  the  world,  but  to  the 
church,  not  ta  show  the  members  how  to  become 
Christians,  but  to  show  them  how  to  live  Christians, 
True  the  Apostles  in  writing  these  Epistles,  allude  in 
so  many  ways,  to  the  way  in  which  the  brethren  were 
pardoned,  that  we  can  learn  almost  every  thing  that 


1€4  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

?.s  essential  to  pardon  from  them;  but  I  repeat  it,  that 
the  main  object  of  the  Epistles  is  to  teach  the  brethren 
the  way  to  heaven. 

Now,  I  assert,  that  Mr.  Terrell  will  not  dare  to  come 
up  to  the  Acts,  and  show  that  the  Apostles  did  not 
preach  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins.  He  will  go 
to  the  Epistles,  and  to  any  other  part  of  the  Bible,  to 
get  rid  of  what  the  Apostles  taught ;  but  he  will  not 
come  to  the  Acts  and  show,  that  they  did  not  preach 
baptism  for  remission.  He  dare  not  preach-  their 
sermons.  If  he  were  to  preach  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  the  facts  to  be  believed, 
and  laith,  repentance,  and  baptism,  as  the  command.s 
to  be  obeyed  in  order  to  Ihe  remission  of  sins,  as  Peter 
did  upon  the  day  of  Pentecost,  he  would  cease  to  be  a 
Methodist,  and  would  soon  be  turned  out  of  the  sacred 
desk  of  that  party.  But  I  must  offer  a  few  argument:^ 
for  Mr.  Terrell  to  dispose  of. 

My  first  argument  shall  be  drawn  from  the  fact,  that 
Christ  commanded  the  Apostles  to  preach  faith  and 
baptism  in  order  to  salvation  from  sin.  ''  Go  you,'' 
said  he,  "  into  all  the  w^orld,  and  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature.  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  beliveth  not,  shall  be 
damned,"  Here  we  see  that  salvation  from  sin  is 
promised  to  such,  and  such  only,  as  both  believe,  and 
are  baptized.  To  preach  faith  without  baptism,  or 
baptism  without  faith,  is  not  what  the  Lord  command- 
ed; but  "  he  that  believeth,  ctWf^  is  baptized,  shall  be 
saved."  In  viev/  of  language  like  this  from  the  lips  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  how  dare  any  man  say,  that  baptism, 
when  preceded  by  faith,  is  not  essential  to  the  remis- 
sian  of  sins?  Not  he  that  believeth,  shall  be  saved  by 
faith  alone ;  but  "■  he  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved."  Luke,  in  his  account  of  the  commis- 
sions, adds  repentance  to  Mark's  account:  "  That  re- 
pentance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in 
his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem." 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  165 

So  the  commission  reads,  "  He  that  believes,  repents, 
and  is  baptized,  shall  receive  remission  of  sins,  or  shall 
be  saved,  which  is  the  same  thing.  If  the  Lord  Jesus 
understood  the  subject,  and  if  he  was  right  in  com- 
manding the  Apostles  to  preach  faith,  repentance,  and 
baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  then  is  my  proposi- 
tion true,  and  baptism  is  essential  to  pardon. 

2.  My  second  argument  shall  be  drawn  from  the 
fact,  already  mentioned,  that  remission  of  sins  was  to 
be  preached  among  ail  nations,  v?i  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  it  is  in  th-i  namf.  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  that 
name  alone,  that  remission  of  sins  is  to  be  had  ;  for  it 
is  the  only  name  given  under  heaven,  or  known  among 
men  by  which  we  can  be  saved.  Now,  baptism  is  the 
act,  and  the  only  a:t  in  the  New  Testament,  by  which 
we  enter  into  the  name  of  Christ.  "  Baptizing  them 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit."'  Math. 
28:  r9.  ''  Fer  as  many  of  j'ouas  have  been  baptized m- 
TO  Chri-if,  have  put  on  Christ."  Gal.  3:  27.  Know  yoc. 
not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  lVto  Jesus 
Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death."  Rom.  6;  3. — 
"  They  were  baptized  into  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus." 
Acts  8:  10.  These  passages  put  it  beyond  doubt,  that 
when  we  enter  into  the  name  of  Christ,  we  are  baptized 
????o  that  name.  Now,  remission  of  sins,  is  not  oii^  of, 
but  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ;  so  it  follows,  that  we 
are  baptized  2//to  the  name  of  Christ,  for  remission  of 
sins  which  is  only  in  his  name.  Mr.  Terrell  never  can 
meet  this  argument  without  showing  one  of  two  things 
to  be  true  ;  1st.  That  v/e  can  receive  remission  of  sins 
as  well  out  of  Christ  a^  in  Christ;  or.  2nd.  That  Ave 
can  Scripturaily  enter  into  Christ,  without  being  bap- 
tized into  him.  He  cannot  show  either  of  these  to  be 
true.  No  man  ever  Scriptvrdly  entered  into  Christ, 
without  being  baptized  into  h  m;  and  no  man  can 
Scripturaily  receive  remission  of  sins  out  (f  him.  These 
are  my  sentiments,  and  these  sentiments  I  am  pre- 
pared  to   defend.       Our  sentiments   are    sometimes 


166 


DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 


slanderously  reported,  for  there  are  some  who  affirm 
that  we  say  remission  of  sins  is  m  baptism.  We  never 
thought  so, — we  never  believed  it,  and  consequently, 
never  said  it.  We  have  always  believed,  and  always 
taught  the  people  every  where,  and  in  all  places,  to 
repent,  and  be  baptized  into  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
fo7'  the  remission  of  sins  in  that  nnme.  Remission  of 
sins  had  been  preached  again  and  again  before  the 
days  of  Jesus  Christ;  but  never  until  the  Apostles  be- 
gan, as  the  Prophets  had  foretold,  and  as  Jesus  had 
commanded,  saying,  "  beginning  at  Jerusalem,''  was 
remission  preached  m  (he  n'lm.e  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

3.  My  third  argument  shall  be  drawn  from  the 
preaching  of  the  Apostles.  .  Fifty  days  after  the  Lord 
was  crucified,  and  scv.zn  days  after  he  gave  them  the 
commission  for  all  the  world  and  ascended  to  heaven, 
we  find  the  Apostles  all  at  Jerusalem,  the  beginning 
place  ;  and  when  the  Spirit  had  come  upon  them,  Pe- 
ter stood  up  with  the  Eleven,  and  declared  to  the  Jews, 
who  were  assembled  there  out  of  every  nation  under 
heaven,  that  Jesus,  whom  they  had  crucified,  w^as  God's 
Son,  and  was  both  Lord  and  Christ.  "  When  they 
heard  this,  they  were  pricked  in  their  hearts,  and  said 
nnto  Peter  and  to  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  men  and 
brethren,  what  shall  we  do?'  (Now  Mark.)  '-Then 
Peter  said  unto  them;  Repent,  and  be  baptized  evevij  one 
of  you  in  the  namz  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remis- 
sion OF  sins;  and  you  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit."  Acts  2:  37,  38.  This  passage  from  Pe- 
ter's discourse  needs  no  comment,  for  it  declares  in 
language  to  plain  to  be  misunderstood,  that  baptism 
Is  for  remission  of  sins.  There  is  no  more  reason  to 
say,  that  this  passage  teaches  a  falsehood,  than  there 
is  that  any  other  passage  in  the  New  Testament  does. 
The  man  who  can  say,  in  the  presence  of  his  God,  that 
this  part  of  the  Bible  is  false,  would,  if  party  purposes 
required  it,  say  that  every  other  part  is  false.  Nothing 
but  infidelity  causes  a  man  to  deny  any  part  of  the 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  167 

Bible.  Paul  was  pardoned  as  the  people  were  upon 
the  day  of  Pentecost;  for  when  he  had  heard/bc- 
Hevcd,  repented,  and  had  prayed  for  three  days  ; 
Ananias  said  to  him,  ''  AYhy  tarriest  thou  ?  arise,  and 
be  baptized,  and  wmli  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord."  Acts.  '22:  16.  Ananias  did  not  say, 
as  a  Methodist,  "  Pray  on  brother  Saul,  that  is  the  way 
to  get  religion  ;  for  there  have  been  thousands  pardon- 
<hI  at.  the  mourner's  bench."  No,  no,  he  was  more 
faithful  to  God  than  that.  Hewell  knew  the  Lord 
never  authorized  any  such  teaching  as  that,  and  that 
he  could  not  faithfully  discharge  his  duty,  but  by  say- 
ing, "  arise,  and  be  baptized,  and  icru^h  auay  ihy  ains.''^ 
ibaptism  was  essential  to  the  pardon  of  Paul. 

4.  My  fourth  argument  is,  that  baptism  is  designed 
for,  remission  of  sins,  but  is  not  spoken  of  in  the  New 
Testament  as  being  designed  to  secure  any  other 
blessing.  If  baptism  is  not  for  remission  of  sins,  what 
is  it  for?  Mr.  Terrell  cannot  show  any  other  design 
-of  baptism;  and  yet,  if  he  denies  that  it  is  /or  remis- 
i^ionofsins,  he  is  solemnly  bound  to  show  what  it  is 
for.  Let  him  come  up  to  the  work  with  his  "  ichole- 
.'ome  doctrine  of  faitli  only,''^  and  show  the  d'/sign  of 
baptism. 

(Time  expired.) 

[mr.  Terrell's  1st  reply — 3d  prop.] 
Gentlemen  Moderators — 

I  present  myself  before  you  with  feelings  of  solemni- 
ty, when  I  consider  the  great  importance  of  the  propo- 
sition v^e  are  to  discuss  to-day.  The  question  of  de- 
bate is  an  important  question,  inasmuch  as  it  relates  to 
the  forgiveness  of  sins.  How  do  we  obtain  the  pardon 
of  past  sins? 

Mr.  Pritchard  complains  of  the  proposition.  He 
would  wish  it  quite  different  from  what  it  is.  But  he 
has  no  reason  to  complain,  for  he  has  already  agreed 
to'  debate  this  proposition,  and  he  cannot  now  get  clear 


1&:^  DEBATE  ON  BAPTlh^ 

ol"  it-  The  time  to  have  complained  of  the  propositijm 
if  he  did  not  like  it,  was  before  he  agreed  to  debate  it. 
He  says  baptism  is  essential  to  pEirdon;  therefore  the 
proposition  is  fair. 

The  question  for  debate  to-day  is,  whether  water 
baptism  is  essential  to  the  pardon  of  past  sins,  or 
whether  we  may  obtain  the  pardon  of  sin&  without 
baptism.  Mr.  Pritchard  argues  that  water  baptism  i> 
essential  to  the  pardon  of  past  sins,  and  consequently 
that  no  one  can  be  pardoned  without  it.  I  deny.  I 
contend  that  a  man  may  be  pardoned  without  baptisni. 
Mr.  P.  says  that  a  man  who  willfully  refuses  to  be  bap- 
tized will  be  lost.  1  agree  with  him  in  this,  for  a  mau 
who  wilfully  disobeys  the  gospel  will  be  lost. 

He  affirms  thatbaptism  preceded  by  faith  and  repen- 
tance is  essential  to  the  pardoii  of  sin.  This  doctrine 
1  have  not  been  able  to  iind  in  all  the  bible.  1  admit 
the  Lord  v/ill  take  veangence  on  them  that  know  not 
God  and  obey  not  the  gospel.  All  that  is  right  enough: 
!>ut  that  is  not  the  question.  Can  we  obtain  pardon 
without  baptism?     That  is  the  question. 

J  am  persuaded  that  if  any  one  had  come  in  while 
he  was  speaking  he  would  have  concluded  that  he  .was- 
following  me.  He  displayed  some  shrewdness,  or  pow- 
er of  prophecy,  in  his  procedure.  He  would  first  speak 
on  my  side  of  the  question,  and  after  arguing  my  side 
of  the  question,  he  coo;imenced  explaining  his  own.  U 
he  ^vill  attendto  his  own  sitleof  the  question,  1  think 
he  will  have  his  hands  full. 

1  think  there  is  some  discrepancy  betwen  his  speech 
last  evening  and  the  oneyou  heard  this  morning.  The 
epistles,  he  has  discovered,  were  written  to  the  saints. 
On  yesterday  he  did  not  discover  this.  In  this  he  has 
crossed  his  own  track,  lie  tells  you  that  1  must  not  ap- 
peal to  the  epistles.  I  appeal  not  to  them,  but  to  the 
te aching  of  .Jesus  and  the  apostles.  Now  Christ  in- 
tended his  word  for  all.  The  gospel  was  intended  fuc 
th.e  whole  family  of  man. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRrT.  1&9 

He  affirmed  that  baptism  is  essential  to  pardon. — 
Pardon  means  justification  or  the  remission  of  sins. — 
8t.  Paul  makes  them  convertable  terms.  Salvation  is 
of  the  same  import.  Paul  says  that  he  wills  that  ail 
men  should  be  saved.  The  angels  of  God  at  the  birth 
of  the  Savior  declare  that  God  wills  the  >Salvation  oi 
all  men,  and  that  the  gospel  was  intended  for  every 
creature.  Yes,  Christian  friends,  thank  God,  the  gospel 
was  intended  for  every  creature,  under  all  circumstan- 
ces. Hence  the  x'Vpostle  says,  '-it  is  of  faith  to  the  end 
the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed. 

Pie  was  pleased  to  tell  you  what  course  I  would  pur- 
sue, but  1  am  not  going  to  the  epistles  to  pove  my  po- 
sition. J  am  not  afraid  to  go  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles where  the  sermons  of  the  apostles  are  recorded. 

Salvation  is  not  by  baptism  as  1  will  show,  but  it  is 
by  faith.  It  is  not  by  ordinances  or  works  of  anykindj 
but  by  faith — faith  being  the  condition.  This  I  will 
prove  by  a  quotation  from  the  4th  chapter  of  Romans. 
"Abraham  believed  God  and  it  was  accounted  to  him 
for  righteousness."  In  this  passage  faith  is  presented 
as  the  condition  of  our  pardon.  What  plainer  proof 
could  any  one  want?  The  gentleman's  proposition  is 
against  the  bible,  for  baptism  is  no  where  said  to  be 
the  condition  of  pardon,  but  faith  is  here  made  the 
condition  of  pardon. 

The  gentleman  quotes  the  commission:  ^'Go  ye  into 
all  the  woi'ld  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature. 
He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  But  this  pas- 
sage does  not  say,  he  that  ts  not  baptized  shall  be  damned, 
but  "he  that  believeth  vot  shall  be  damned."  This  pas- 
sage proves  my  position,  that  faith  is  the  condition. — 
The  gentleman  may  try,  but  he  can  never  get  over  this 
position. 

Should  he  undertaketo  prove  that  faith  is  not  the  con- 
dition of  pardon  he  will  come  in  direct  contact  with 
the  gospel,  for  the  gospel  is   divinely   consistent  in  all 


170  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

its  parts;  and  we  are  taught  by  the  passage  just  quo- 
ted that  faith  is  the  condition,  and  the  only  essential. 
To  this  the  Savior's  own  words  testily;  "he  that  belie- 
veth  not  shall  be  damned."  Faith  is  the  great  and  the 
important — the  mighty  requisite.  Let  me  read  from 
John  3:  14:  "And  as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the 
wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up, 
that  whosoever  bclicretk  in  him  should  not  perish  but 
have  everlasting  life."  Now  here  was  the  great  re- 
quisite,— looking  to  Christ  by  faith,  and  as  the  children 
of  Israel  looked  to  the  brazen  serpent,  and  were  healed 
even  so,  the  Lord  promises  that  we  shall  be  healed  by 
looking  to  Christ  by  faith. 

This  does  not  exclude  the  unbaptized,  for  every  be- 
liever was  pardoned.  A  man  condemned  is  considered 
guilty,  and  has  the  vengeance  of  a  broken  law,  hanging 
over  his  head  till  pardoned;  but  when  his  reprival  is 
signed  by  the  governor,  he  is  no  longer  guilty. 

Mr.  Campbell  says  that  baptism  is 'the  pardoning 
act — that  we  go  down  into  the  water  wicked  and  unho- 
ly, and  that  we  come  out  of  the  water  pure  and  holy, 
tie  thus  makes  baptism  the  line  of  demarkation  between 
the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  Before  it  all  are  wicked 
but  after  it  all  are  righteous.  But  our  Savior  says, 
"he  that  believeth  is  justified,"'  "is  passed  li^om 
death  unto  life,"  in  the  present  tense — not  will  be  after 
baptism.  Mark  the  difference  between  Mr.  Campbell 
'And  our  Savior.  Mr.  Campbell  says,  baptism  is  the 
converting  act  but,  the  Savior  says,  "he  that  believeth 
is  passed  fromf  death  unto  life."  Show  me  a  man 
that  believes  and  I  will  show  you  a  man  that  is  saved. 
Even  John  the  baptist,  that  great  Baptist  that  all  Bap- 
tists talk  so  much  about,  says,  "he  that  believeth  on  the 
Son  hath  everlasting  life,"  in  the  presenttense.  To  have 
preached  the  doctrine  @f  my  friend,  he  should  have  said 
he  that  believeth  on  the  Son  .^hall  have  everlvsting  life, 
'/f  in  addition  to  his  faith  he  will  be  immersed  in  some 
pond. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  171 

1  now  come  to  Acts  10:  43:  '-To  him  give  all  the 
|jrophets  witness,  that,  through  his  name,  whosoever  bc- 
iievetfi  in  him  shall  receive  the  remission  of  sins.  This 
winds  up  the  chapter  with  m}'  friends  doctrine.  All  the 
prophets  are  against  him.  Thej^  all  bear  witness  that 
I  am  right,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  re- 
ceive the  the  remission  of  sins.''  Let  him  show  that 
one  of  the  prophets  have  said  that  a  man  must  be  bap- 
tized before  he  can  receive  the  remission  of  sins.  But 
this  he  never  can  do.  Here  then  I  have  a  triumphant 
argument,  sustained  by  all  the  hoi}'  prophets,  and 
sanctioned  by  the  apostle,  the  first  time  he  ever  ad- 
dressed a  Gentile  congregation,  that  through  his  name 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of 
sins.  It  does  not  say,  that  if  they  are  baptized  they 
shall  be  pardoned,  but  whosoever  believeth  shall  re- 
ceive remission  of  sins. 

I  now  call  the  gentlemans  attention  to  another  strong 
proof  text,  found  Acts  13:  39.  It  reads  as  a;  follows: 
•'And  by  him  all  that  believe  are  juslilied  from  all 
things,  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law 
of  Moses."  This  is  a  strong  passage.  It  includes  all 
that  believe,  and  the  word  all  don't  mean  part.  It  is 
like  Lorenzo  Dow's  chain  with  five  links;  all  of  them, 
and  he  says,  a-ll  don't  mean  port.  This  language  is 
clear  and  explicit.  All  that  heliwc  are  j ustiHed  from  all 
tilings,  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law 
of  iVJoses.  Faith  is  the  condition  here,  and  the  only 
condition,  and  all  that  believe  are  justified— not  shall 
be  justified,  if  they  are  baptized,  hut  are  justified,  from 
all  things  from  which  they  could  not  be  justified  by  the 
law  of  Moses.  How  could  language  be  more  clear 
and  explicit?     Who  could  wish  for  stronger  evidence? 

1  must  quote  one  more  passage,  whicix  reads  as  fol- 
lows: Whosover  beUeveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  is 
born  of  God;  and  every  one  that  leveth  him  that  be- 
gat, leveth  him  also  that  is  begotten  of  Him."  1  John 
i>:  1.     Observe,  my  christian  friends,  he  does  not  say 


172  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

"He  that  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  shall  be  bonj 
of  God,  if  he  is  immersed,'^  as  my  friend,  Mr.  Pritchard 
would  say,  but  "Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ  It;,"  in  the  present  tense,  "born  of  God."  Here 
faith  is  the  condition  of  justification,  and  the  only  con- 
dition: which  1  think  1  have  now  shown  by  incontesti- 
ble  evidence  from  the  holy  scripture.  1'his  is  an  argu- 
ment against  Mr.  Pritchard's  doctrine  that  he  can  never 
answer. 

J  have  said  the  gospel  is  intended  for  man — the  whole 
family  of  man,  in  all  the  world  and  under  all  circum- 
stances. Ciod's  plan  of  saving  sinners  is  adapted  to 
man  in  every  condition  in  which  he  can  be  placed  in 
this  life.  That  is  the  plan  of  justification  by  faith.  A 
man  can  exercise  faith  a  hundred  miles  from  water,  a 
hundred  miles  from  the  administrator  of  baptism,  or 
even  on  a  sick  bed  when  he  has  no  strength  to  be  bap- 
tized. Yes  I  say  the  gospel  applies  to  such  as  these, 
and  tells  them,  in  language  that  may  be  truly  and  pro- 
perly styled  "good  news"  "whosoever  believeth  that 
Jesus  is  the  Christ  is  born  of  God."  But  Mr.  Pritchard's 
gospel  has  no  good  news  for  any  such  persons.  He 
would  tell  them  that  baptism  is  essential  to  pardon,  and 
consequently  that  they  could  not  be  pardoned  witiiout 
bfiptism. 

The  gospel  of  Christ  is  to  every  creature,  but  there- 
are  thousands  upon  thousands,  who  may  hear  Mr. 
Pritchards  gospel  to  whom  it  wOuld  be  no  good  news. 
Call  himto  thebed  of  the  sicR  man,  and  askhim  to  preach 
the  gospel  to  him.  He  tells  him  that  baptism  is  essen- 
tial to  the  pardon  of  sins.  The  man  responds,  I  am 
unable  to  be  baptized.  According  to  Mr.  Pritchards 
doctrine  he  must  be  lo^st.  My  christian,  iiiends,  do  you 
believe  this  doctrine?  No;  you  cannot  believe  it.  Ir 
is  too  absurd.  Jt  would  be  no  good  news  to  any  por- 
tion of  the  human  race  where  they  could  not  be  im  - 
inersed. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  173. 

But  the  g^ospel  of  Christ  which,  I  find  in  my  bible, 
thank  God  can  comfort  the  drooping  heart  of  man,  in 
any  condition  where  the  providence  of  God  may  place 
him.  Man  can  believe  in  anyplace  and  in  any  condi- 
tion, and  the  scripture  says,  that  "he  that  believeth  the. 
Son  hath  everlasting  life.'  This  is  good  news  of  great 
Joy  to  all peiplc,'^  and  makes  man  depend  on  the  grace 
of  God  for  salvation,  and  not  on  some  one  to  baptize 
him. 

The  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  has  long,  stood 
the  test  against  all  opposition,  and  must  stand.  It  is 
the  blessed  doctrine  of  the  bible.  Let  the  gentleman, 
then,  come  up  to  the  work,  and  meet  these  arguments 
if  he  can,  and  he  will  have  enough  to  do  without  anti- 
ripating  my  arguments  as  he  did  in  his  last  speech. 
[Time  expired.] 

MR.  PRITCHARD's  SECOND  ADDRESS 3rD    PROP. 

Gentlemen  Moderators: 

So  it  seems,  Mr.  Terrell  is  determined  not  to  follow 
me.  1  can  say  nothing  worthy  of  his  attention.  He  is 
determined  to  make  his  own  speeches,  and  preach  hi;^ 
old  sermons,  with  which  this  community  have  been 
bored  for  the  last  year.  He  will  not  join  issue  with 
me.  What  can  be  the  reason  ?  Since  this  discussion 
commenced,  we  have  had  no  debate,  for  he  will  not 
debate  with  me.  He  has  paid  no  more  attention  to 
my  arguments,  since  the  discussion  commenced,  than 
merely  to  allude  to  them,  and  sometimes  not  even 
that.  How  is  a  man  to  illustrate,  elucidate,  and  show 
the  strength  of  his  positions,  unless  his  opponent  will 
assail  them  ?  What  has  his  speech  this  morning  to  do 
with  the  propo5iition  ?  What  has  a  lecture  on  faith  to 
do  with  the  design  of  Christian  baptism,  more  than  a 
lecture  on  the  office  of  Bishop,  or  Deacon  ?  The  issue 
is  not  whether  faith,  repentance,  or  conversion  is  es- 
sential to  pardon,  but  is  baptism,  when  preceded  by 
faith,  repentance  and  a  cfiange  of  heart,  designed  for 


174  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

remission  of  sins?  I  truly  regret  such  a  stupid  repi}  . 
I  believe  as  firmly  as  any  man  now  living,  that  no  man 
ever  was,,  or  ever  can  be  saved  in  this  world,  or  in  the 
world  to  come,  without  faith.  I  do  not  believe  that  a 
man  can  be  saved  from  sin  by  baptism,  without  faith 
and  repentance.  Nor  do  I  believe  that  baptism  will 
do  a  man  any  good,  if  it  is  not  preceded  by  faith.  This 
I  showed  on  yesterday.  Baptism  without  faith,  such 
as  the  Methodists  have,  is  solemn  mockery.  But  the 
i?sue  is  not  about  faith,  nor  repentance,  but  upon  the 
design  of  baptism  : — is  baptism  designed  for  remission, 
or  for  something  else  ?  I  have  ofl'ered  four  arguments 
upon  the  issue  agreed  upon,  but  to  none  of  them  has 
Mr.  Terrell  replied.  Nor  can  he,  if  his  salvation  de- 
pended upon  it,  and  he  well  knows  it.  If  he  will  take 
these  arguments  from  me,  I  will  give  up  the  question  ; 
for  f  depend  upon  them  to  prove  my  position. 

If  he  will  not  follow  me,  I  must  try  and  follow  him. 
I  would  as  soon  debate  the  question  of  faith  alone,  as 
any  thing  else.  Before  exposing  the  "  wholesome  and 
comfortable  doctrine  of  faith  only,^'  I  must  expose  the 
sophistry  and  infidelity  of  his  pretended  reply  to  my 
arguments.  What  then,  is  his  reply  ?  Why  it  is  this  :. 
John  says,  "  He  that  believes  is  not  condemned,"  and 
therefore,  Jesus  did  not  tell  the  truth  when  he  said, 
"  He  that  believes,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved." 
John  says,  "He  that  believeth  hath  eternal  life,"  and 
therefore,  Peter  did  not  preach  the  truth  when  he  said, 
"  Repent,  and  be  baptized  foi^  remission  of  sins."  John 
says,  -"  Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is 
born  of  God,"  and  therefore,  the  Lord  Jesus  told  a 
falsehood  when  he  said,  ''Except  a  man  be  bom  of 
7/wter,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom 
of  God."  How  does  the  fact  of  faith  being  essential  to 
pardon,  justification,  or  remission,  prove  that  baptism^ 
repentance,  or  any  other  command  is  not  essential? 
It  is  the  language  of  his  creed,  and  not  of  the  Bible,, 
that  we  are  justified  by  faith  07dy.     The  Bible  put  the 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  175 

word  faith,  and  the  word  only  together  but  once,  and 
then  it  asserts  in  so  many  words,  that,  "  We  are  justi- 
fied by  works,  and  not  b;/  faith  onlyy  James,  ^:  '^4. 

As  the  passage  from  John's  first  epistle,  5th  chap., 
is  a  favorite  among  the  advocates  of  faith  only,  I  v/ill 
pay  my  respects  to  it  in  a  special  manner.     John  men- 
tions the  new  birth  several  times  in  this  same  epistle. 
In  the  5th  chap.,  ist  verse,  he  sajs,  '•  Whosoever  be- 
lieveth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born   of  God."     in 
the  4th  chap.,  7th  verse,  he  says,    "  Beloved,  let  us 
love  one  another :  for  love  is  of  God ;  and  every  one 
X]:vQ.t  loveth,  is  born  of  God."      In   the    2nd  chap.,  last 
verse,  he  says,  '*  Every  one  that  doeth   righteousness   is 
born  of  him.''''     Now,  I  ask  any  man  who  believes  the 
word  of  God,  if  John  taught,  in  this  epistle,  thi-ee  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  new  births ;  one  by  faith  alone,  one 
by  love  alone,  and  one  by  doing  righteousn<^ss,  ivithout 
either  faith,  or  love  ?      W^e  all  know  be  did  not.  Well, 
then,  you  are  all  compelled  to  agree  with  me,  that  it 
was  not  by  faith,  or  love  alone,  but  by  faith,  love,  and 
doing  righteous lu^ss  all  together,  that  the  people  were 
born  of  God.     To  do  righteousness,  is  to  obey  the  com- 
mandments of  God.     Peter  says,  '^  Born  again,  not  of 
corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word  of 
Ged''     And  Jesus  says,  "  Except  a  man  be  bui-n  of  wa- 
ter, and  of  the  S-pirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of 
God."     Being  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  makes  it 
none  the  Jess  true,  that  we  are   also  born  of  faith,  of 
love,  of  doing  righteousness,  and  of  the  word  of  God; 
and  being  born  of  either  of  these,  mfikes  it   none  the 
less  true,  that  we  are  born  oi  water,  and  of  the  Spirit, 
There  is  but  one  new  birth  in   the  bible,  and  the  pas- 
sages now  quoted,  puts  it  beyond  doubt,  that  the  faith, 
the  love,  the  aoing  righteousness,  the  word  of  God.  the 
u)ater,  and  the  Spirit   are  dll  essential   to  the  one  new 
birth.     Note  that  sir,  and  in  your  next  speech  tell  us 
how  it  is,  that  one  of  these  five  passages  teaches  what 
is  true,  and  all  the  other  four  teach  what  is   false^ 


176  DfiBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

With  me,  they  are  all  true.     Not  one  of  them  says  it 
is  by  faith,  love,  or  any  thing  else  alone. 

He  told  you  that  he  was  not  going  to  the  espistles, 
as  I  said  he  would,  yet  the  very  first  passage  he  quo- 
ted, was  from  the  4th  of  Romans  :  "  Abraham  be- 
lieved God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  hirn  for  righte- 
ousness." He  quoted  this  passage  to  prove  justifica- 
tion by  faith  alone.  Now,  the  Apostle  was  not  trying 
in  this  chapter,  to  prove  justification  by  faith  alone, 
but  to  prove  that  men  are  justified  without  circumci- 
sion, and  without  obedience  to  the  law  of  Moses. 
Hence  he  says,  "  Faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  tor 
righteousness,"  How  was  it  then  reckoned  ?  when  he 
was  in  circumcision,  or  in  uncircumcision  ?  Not  in  cir- 
cumcision, but  in  uncircumcision.  And  he  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision  :  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
(»f  the  faith  which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised ; 
that  he  might  be  the  lather  of  all  them  that  believe, 
though  Ihcy  he  not  circumcised.  Rom.  4:  10,  11.  The 
controversy  was  here  between  Paul,  and  the  Jews  who 
v/ereatRome.  It  was  not  about  obedience  to  the 
Gospel  of  Christ;  but  about  the  works  of  the  law  of 
Moses.  Paul  maintained  that  the  Gospel  was  design- 
ed to  save  men  without  the  works  of  the  law.  The 
Jews  maintained  that,  "  Except  you  be  circumcised  af- 
ter the  manner  of  Moses,  you  cannot  he  saved ^  Acts,  15: 
1.  So  "  the  ivorks'''  which  Paul  mentions  in  this  chap- 
ter, are  not  the  commands  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  circum- 
cision, and  other  thiags,  after  the  manner  of  Moses. 

That  Paul  did  not  think  of  teaching  pardon,  justiri- 
cation  or  remission  by  faith  alone,  without  any  action 
upon  our  part,  I  will  now  prove  by  this  same  epistle  to 
the  Romans.  In  the  third,  fourth,  fifth,  and  tenth 
chapters,  he  speaks  of  our  being  justified  by  faith  ;  but 
never  says  it  is  by  faith  alone.  In  the  third  chapter, 
24th  verse,  he  says,  "  Being  justified /re^?/^  bi;  his  L^race, 
through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  Whonj 
God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith 


AKD  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  HV 

Mi\  his  \)lood,  to  declare  his  riorhfeousness  for  the.  rcmis- 
.*ion  of  sins  that  are  past."  How  can  we  be  justified 
freely  by  his  grace,  if  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone? 
JTow  can  the  righteousness  of  God  be  for  remission  of 
"sins,  if  remission  is  by  our  faith,  alonef  We  are  justili- 
•^d,  not  by  faith,  righteousness,  or  grace,  alonef  but  by 
all  of  them  together. 

In  the  5th  chap..  9th  verse,  he  says,  "  being  noftJ  just- 
ified bi/  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath  through 
liim.""'  But  if  it  is  by  faith  alccie,  how  can  it  be  by  the 
Woo^  of  Christ  that  we  are  justified?  But  I  must  call 
his  attention  to  one  of  his  proofs  texts,  in  Rom.,  iOth 
chap.:  ''That  if  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved." 
V^erse  9.  **  Whosoever  sha!l  crll  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord  shall  be  saved."  Verse  13.  Ave  confessing, 
■beheving,  and  calling  on  the  Lord,  all  faith  alone,  Mr. 
Terrell  ?  Here  are  three  things,  and  not  one  alone,  by 
which  we  ane  saved.  We  have  now  seen,  that  we 
'are  said  to  be  justified  by  six  different  things:  By 
faith,  by  grace,  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  by  righteous- 
iriess,  by  confessing  with  the  mouth,  and  by  calling  on. 
the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  and  it  is  just  as  true  that  we 
are  justified  by  blood,  grace,  or  confession,  as  it  is  that 
we  are  justified  by  faith.  But  how  can  it  be  as  true, 
if  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone. 

Mr.  Terrell  denies  that  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  grace 
of  God.  baptism,  repentance,  prayer,  the  death,  burial, 
or  resurrection  of  Christ  have  anything  to  do  with  our 
justification;  for  it  is  by  faith,  and  by  faith  onJi/,  that 
we  are  justified,  he  says.  Only  mea^nsone  thing  by  it- 
self, or  am  thing,  to  the  exclusion  of  every  other  thing; 
so  justification  by  faith  onh/,  means  justification  by 
faith,  sepai'ate  from  the  blood  of  Christ,  the  grace  of 
God,  and  every  thing  else.  The  word  on^i/  is  thus  de- 
Ihied  by  Crabb,  in  his  *'  English  Synonymes  :"  *'  Onlu, 
contracted  from  oneli/,  signifying  in  the  form  of  unity,''' 
L 


178  DEBATE  ON  BAfTISM 

and  is  employed  for  that  of  which  ihcrcis  nc>mokk.  A  per- 
son has  one  child,  is  a  positive  expression  that  be- 
spealvs  its  own  meaning;  a  person  has  a  single  child^ 
conveys  the  idea  that  there  ought  to  be  or  might  be 
more  ;  a  person  has  an  onlij  child,  implies  that  he  v.ever 
had  any  ?7iorc.^''  p.  251. 

vSo  faith  oni?/,  not  only  means  that  faith  is  by  itself, 
but  that  it  has  always  been  alone,  and  never  had  any 
thing  else  with  it.  Well  might  James  have  said  to  an 
advocate  of  faith  onli/,.  "  Wilt  tkoy  know,  0  vain  mnnj. 
that  faith  without  works,  i.^  dead." 

But  before  I  leave  this  epistle  to  the  Romans,  I  will 
show  you  when,  and  how  they  were  made  free  from  sin. 
Turn,  if  you  please,  to  the  6th  chapter,  verses  17,  18, 
and  hear  the  Apostle  :  ''  But  God  be  thanked,  that 
whereas,  [Wesley's  Translation]  ye  were  the  servants 
of  sin  :  but  ye  have  obeyed  frorn  the  heart  Xhddfurm  of 
doctrine  which  was  delivered  you."  (Now  mark.) 
'■  Being  then  made  FREEi-'iioM  sin,  ye  become  the  serv- 
ants of  righteousness."  When  was  it  that  they  were 
made  free  from  sin  ?  Why  then,  at  the  time  they 
'•  obeyed  from  the  heart  that  form  of  doctrine  which  wai^ 
delivered  them."  What  can  be  plainer  than  this? 
Does  it  not  show,  beyond  all  doubt,  that  the  people 
were  not  made  free  from  sin  by  faith  only,  but  by  faith 
in  God's  promises,  and  obedience  to  his  command- 
ments. It  was  not  the  doctrine,  but  tup.  form  of  thtr 
doctrine  that  they  obeyed  when  they  were  made  frtr 
from  sin.  The  '/  doctrine  delivered"  was,  that  Christ 
died,  w^as  buried,  and  raised  again  ;  and  the  form  of 
this  doctrine,  as  set  forth  in  the  first  part  of  this  chap- 
ter, was,  that  the  Romans  died  to  sin,  were  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism,  and  were  raised  again  to  walk  in 
newness  of  life.  Thus  we  see,  that  at  the  very  time 
they  were  buried  in  baptism,  in  obedience  to  the  forns 
of  doctrine,  they  were  made  free  from  sin.  Thi?  1 
call  my  fifth  argument,  in  support  of  the  position  that 
baptism  is  for  remission  of  sins. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  itO 

But  Paul  is  not  alone  in  teaching  that  we  are  puri- 
fied or  made  free  from  sin  in  obedience  to  the  Lord's 
word,  for  Peter  also  says  to  the  brethren  :  "  Seeing  you 
have  purified  your  souls  in  obci.ingthe  truth  through  the 
Spirit  unto  unfeigned  love  of  the  brethren,  see  that 
you  love  one  another  with  a  pure  heart  fervently." 
Here  we  see,  that  the  brethren  to  whom  Peter  wrote 
were  made  free  from  sin,  and  purified  in  ohrdhnce — 
^'  ?7i  ohcijhi^  the  truth  through  the  Spirit.*'  How  can 
this  be  true,  if  we  are  made  free  from  sin  by  faiih  onhj, 
without  any  obedience  ?  Let  Mr.  Terrell  answer,  as 
he  professes  to  respect  the  word  of  God.  Methodists 
teach  that  the  moment  we  believe  we  are  brought  to 
know  God,  and  to  experience  pardon  and  an  instar- 
taneous  change  by  faith  only.  This  is  Methodism  as 
taught  by  the  entire  party.  It  is  by  faith  only  without 
any  obedience  that  we  obtain  these  blessings.  John 
says,  ''  He  that  says  he  knows  God,  a,nd  keeps  not  hi:s 
commandments,  is  a  liar,  and  the  truth  is  not  in  him." 
1st  Epistle,  2:  4. 

Mr.  Terrell  told  you  that  Methodists  do  not  believe 
in  justification  by  faith  alone,  but  by  faith  only,  and  that 
anly  does  not  mean  in  the  Discipline,  one  thing  alone, 
or  one  thing  by  itself.  As  to  what  they  believe,  or  what 
their  real  sentiments  are,  I  cannot  speak  for  them  all, 
but  I  know  that  the  greater  part  of  them  really  agree 
with  us  in  sentiment,  if  they  only  knew  it.  In  this 
discussion  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  what  they  really 
hcliev,  but  what  they  7-eally  tmch.  When  they  teach 
justification  by  faith  only,  they  teach  what  I  know 
they  do  not  believe,  and  what  no  sane  man  ever  did 
or  ever  can  believe  ;  but  that  they  teach  it  I  will  now 
prove.  What  is  the  language  of  this  creed  of  theirs  ? 
"  Wherefore,  that  we  are  justified  hy  faith  only,  is  a 
mosf,  ichoksome  doctrine^  and  very  full  of  comfort.'''  Here 
it  is  as  plain  as  language  can  make  it.  But  the  word 
"  only"  in  the  discipline  does  not  mean  one  thing  alone, 
he  says,  but  one  thing,  and  several  other  things  with  it. 


ISO  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Let  US  see  how  this  is.  In  the  form  of  marriage  laid 
down  in  the  Discipline  on  page  115,  I  find  where  a 
man  is  required  to  "  forsake  all  others,  and  to  cleave  to 
his  wife,  and  her  onlyy  I  now  ask  Mr.  Terrell  {{only 
here  means  one  alone,  or  does  it  mean  that  he  shall 
cleave  to  his  wife  and  five  or  six  others  ?  He  knows 
it  means  one  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others  ;  and  yet  he 
leils  us,  that  only  in  the  Discipline  does  not  mean  one 
aione,  but  several  together. 

In  Watson's  Life  of  Wesley,  (which,  by  the  by,  is 
not  the  life  q{  Wesley,  but  a  book  published  for  the 
M.  E.  Church,  to  teach  iVIethodism,)  I  find  the  follow- 
ing :  "  Alas  !  How  little  is  the  difierence  between  as- 
serting, either,  1.  That  we  are  justified  by  works, 
which  is  popery  bare-faced;  or,  2.  That  we  are  justi- 
iied  by  faith  and  works,  which  is  popery  refined  or 
vailed;  or,  3.  That  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone, 
but  by  such  a  faith  as  includes  all  good  works.  What 
A  POOR  SHIFT  IS  THIS, — I  wiU  uot  say  that  we  are  justifi- 
ed by  works,  nor  yet  by  faith  and  works,  because  I  have 
subscribed  articles  and  homilies  v/hich  maintain  just 
the  contrary.  No  ;  I  say,  we  arejusti/ied  by  faith  alone/' 
p.   100.        ^ 

This  speaks  for  itself.  Mr.  Terrell  is  the  man  who 
is  guilty  of  the  "  poor  shift'"  of  which  this  writer  speaks 
for  he  says,  it  is  by  faith  alone  that  we  are  justified, 
••  but  by  such  a  faith  as  includes  all  good  works." — 
Here  is  a  note  at  the  bottom  ot  the  same  page,  which 
says  :  *'  The  faith  vvhich  justifies  does  not  include  good 
works,"  but  it  will  after  "  it  has  justified  us,  be  followed 
by  good  works."  This  is  Methodism.  But  I  must 
read  a  little  more  : 

"  Surely  the  difiiculty  of  assentuig  to  the  propostion, 
that  faith  is  the  only  condition  oi  justification,  must 
arise  from  net  understanding  it.  We  mean  thereby 
thus  much,  that  it  is  the  only  t/u?tg,  without  which  3io 
one  is  justified;  the  only  thing  that  is  immediately, 
indispensably,  absolutely  requisite  in  order  to  pardon. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  181 

As  on  the  one  hand,  though  a  man  should  have  eve- 
ry thing  else,  without  faith,  yet  he  cannot  be  justified  ; 
so  on  the  other,  though  he  be  supposed  to  want  ev^nr 
thing  elsc^  yet  if  he  hath  faith,  he  cannot  be  but  justiji-d." 
p.  148. 

Is  not  this  faith  alone  ?  if  a  man  has  faith,  icilJ/oHf 
the  blood  of  Christ,  the  grace  of  God,  or  any  thing 
else,  "  he  cannot  be  but  justified.'^  I  repeat  it,  the  doc- 
trine of  '\failh  o?i/y  denies  the  blood  of  Chri^it,  the  gracf 
of  God,  repentance,  baptism,  prayer,  and  every  thin^- 
else  being  essential  to  our  pardon.  Faith  is  the  only 
thing  injustiiication,  and  the  only  thing  essential  toil. 

Here  is  "  Campbellism  Exposed,"  in  which  1  find 
Methodism  thus  "  exposed.'  Mr.  Phillips,  the  Author 
of  this  exvosition.  represents  the  "  Campbellite''  as  say- 
ing :  '-That  if  the  condition"  (of  pardon)  "should 
prove  to  be  faith  alone,  the  addition  of  baptism  must  be 
harmless,  inasmuch  as  faith  is  retained  as  a  jart  of 
the  condition."  (Now  mark.)  ''  But  the  most  ordina- 
ry reader  will  see  the  dans:cr  of  making  that  a  j)arf 
Only,  which  God  had  made  the  wholk."  p.  44. 

The  blood  of  Christ,  then,  and  the  grace  of  God  are 
not  parts  of  the  condition  of  pardon,  for  faith  is  the 
'•only  condition,"  and  the  "  wholk"  of  the  condition. 
He  need  not  try  to  teach  me  Methodism,  for  I  under- 
stand the  '  whole'  of  it.  In  my  next  speech  I  will  provf 
that  faith  is  not  the  condition  of  pardon,  nor  any  part 
of  the  condition.  Neither  faith,  repentance  or  bap- 
tism is  the  condition.  Will  Mr.  Terrell  tell  us  what 
the  word  condition  means  ? 

(Time  expired.) 

[mr.  tkkrell's  2d  rkply — 3d  prop.] 
Gentlemen  Moderators — 

i  have  now  but  three  speeches  to  make  on  the  proposi- 
tion before  us,  and  consequently  shall  not  be  able  to  no- 
tice all  the  irrelevant  matters  brought  forward  by  the 
gentleman.  He  has  learned  that  the  epistles  were  ad- 
dressed to  to  the  saints.     We  all  knew  this  before,     it 


1S2  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

is  110  new  doctirne;  but  that  is  no  reason  why  I  should 
not  refer  to  them.  I  suppose  saint  is  a  holy  person, 
and  1  can  see  no  other  reason  why  I  should  not  be  al- 
lowed to  quote  language  in  this  debate  addressed  to 
holy  persoMS. 

I  wish  now  to  show  you  the  gentleman's  candor  in 
([noting  from  Mr.  Wesley.  The  gentleman  now  tells 
you  that  me  and  my  party  believe  that  faith  is  all  that 
is  necessary  to  justification  and  quotes  Mr.  AVesley  to 
{vrove  it;  but  I  will  read  you  the  whole  of  the  passage 
of  whrch  he  took  care  only  to  read  you  apart.  It  reads 
as  follows: 

''Surely  the  difficulty  of  assenting  to  the  proposition, 
that  faith  is  the  ojifi/ condition,  of  justification  must  a- 
rise  from  not  understanding  it.  We  mean  thereby  this 
much,  that  it  is  the  only  thing  that  is  immediately,  in- 
dispensably, absolutely  requisite  in  order  to  pardon. — 
As  on  the  one  hand,  though  a  man  should  have  every 
thing  else,  without  faith  yet  he  cannot  be  justified;,  so 
on  the  other,  though  he  be  supposed  to  want  every  thing 
f^lse,  yet  if  he  hath  faith,  he  cannot  be  but  justi- 
bcd.  For  suppose  a  sinner  of  any  kind  or  degree  in  a 
full  sense  of  his  total  ungodliness,  of  his  utter  inability 
to  think,  speak  or  dp  good,  and  his  absolute  meetness 
for  hell  lire;  suppose  I  say,  this  sinner,  helpless  and 
Iiopeiess,  casts  himself  wholly  on  the  mercy  of  God  in 
Cihrist,  (which  indeed  he  cannot  do  but  by  the  grace  of 
<  iod,)who  can  doubt  but  he  is  forgiven  in  that  moment? 
Who  will  affirm  that  any  thing  more  is  indispensably 
required,  before  that  sinner  can  be  justified?"  IT  es/ey's 
Sfrmon  on.  Jitstijlcalion. 

Now  this  proves  that  faith  is  the  great  requisite — the 
great  principle  through  which  the  sinner  comes  and 
'•asts  himself  down  at  the  foot  of  the  cross,  acknowl- 
edging himself  a  poor  undone  rebel,  and  that  faith  is 
the  a  nil/  condition  of  pardon. 

Mr.  Pritchard  calls  upon  me  to  tell  what  I  mean  by 
condition.  By  the  condition  through  or  by  which  we 
are  justified,  1  mean  the  principle,  the  only  principle 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  183 

by  which  any  man  can  be  justified.  But  while  I  hold 
that  faith  is  the  condtion  and  the  only  condition  of  justi- 
^cation,  1  believe  repentance  and  baptism  are  means 
of  justification.  But  I  do  not  believe  that  baptism  is 
more  of  a  means  than  prayer. 

He  complains  ot  my  going  to  the  epistles,  and  if  it 
will  suit  him  ;uiy  better,  I  will  quote  from  Walter  Scott's 
^•Gospel  Restored."  IMr.  Scott  says,  "There  are  many 
that  are  not  pardoned  in  baptism."  This  Mr.  Scott  is 
a  distinguished  member  in  the  gentleman's  own  church, 
and  yet  he  declares  that  there  are  many  that  are  not; 
pardoned  in  baptism. 

Baptism  is  profitable  for  us.  It  strengthens  our 
faith  and  is  auxilerey,  to  it,  but  not  essential  to  pardon. 
The  Jailor  enquired,  "Sirs,  What  must  I  do  to  be  saved"i^" 
But  Paul  did  not  say,  be  baptized;  but  he  told  him  to 
^'believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shait  be 
saved  and  thy  house."'  Here  my  Christian  friends,  is 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 

But  the  gentleman  says  triumphantly  that  1  have  not 
produced  one  ca.se  of  Justification  by  faith  nlonc. — 
Look  at  the  case  I  have  just  produced.  The  Jailor  was 
required  to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Here 
faith  is  the  condition  and  the  only  condition.  Also  in 
Ro.  10th  chapter,  we  find  the  same  doctrine.  '*3Ioses. 
describeth  the  righteousness  which  is  of  the  Law.  that 
the  man  which  doeth  these  things  shall  live  by  them. — 
But  the  righteousness  which  of  faith  speaketh  on  this 
wise,  Say  not  in  thine  heart  who  shall  ascend  into  hea- 
ven? (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down  from  above;)  or 
who  shall  decend  into  the  deep?  (that  is,  to  bring  up 
Christ  again  from  the  dead.)  But  n-hat  saith  it?  The 
word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  h^art: 
that  is  the  word  of  faith  which  we  preach;  that  if  thou 
shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  sha'.c 
believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from 
the  dead,  thou' shalt  be  saved.  For  with  the-  heart 
man  believeth  unto  righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth 
i{>oufession  is  made  unto  salvation."'  '^''' 


IM  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM  » 

Here  we  are  said  to  believe  unto  rigliteousiiess,  or  a?j- 
you  would  say  [Heve  Mr.  T.  Pointed  to  Mr.  PritchardJ 
into  righteousness-  The  gentleman  seenjs  to  have 
a  smiling  countenance.  He  must  feel  very  mucU 
pleased  about  something! 

This  passage  showN  that  faith  is  the  only  condition  of 
pardon.     Again,  the  apostle  says,  "the  promise   is  sure 
to  ail  the  seed."     Xow  it  is  not  sure  if  it  cannot  be  re- 
ceived without  baptism,  for  there  are  many  circumstan- 
ces in  which  it  is  diihcult  and  even  impossibly  to  be  bap- 
tized.    Morever,  the  gentleman's  doctrine  always  de- 
fers God's  time.     God  says,  "Now  is  the  day  of  salva- 
tion,'' bat  the  gentleman  would  say  put  it  off  till  yois 
can  find  water.     God  says  my  word  is  nigh  thee.  evcM 
in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart, but  the  gentleman  would 
say,  it  is  as  far  oif  as  the  water.     Yes,  it  is  nigh  thee. 
not  at  the  creek  nor  the  river.  Go  with  me  to  the  cham- 
ber of  sickness  when  the  cold  blast  of  winter  is  chilling 
the  stoutest  frame.     Man  is  made  to  tremble  at  the  im- 
mense darkness  and  bitterness  of  the  cold.     We  behold 
the  sick  woman  there  upon  a  dying  bed,  having  been 
worn  out  by  long  sulT'ering  and  she  is  in  an  ex.treme  state 
of  debility,  and  she  asks  Mr.  P.,  What  shall  I  do  to  be 
saeed?     He  answers,  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to  save 
sinners      His  word  is  nigh  the;  his  yoke  is  easy  aiad  hi.^ 
burden  is  light,     "Now   is  the  accepted  time  asid  the 
day  of  salvation."     Believe  and  thou  shait  be  saved. 
She  says  I  believe  thai  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God. 
May  such  a  sinner  as  I  am  come  awd  be   accepted  of 
him     He  says,  she  may.     She  says  what  shall  I  do? — 
Mr.  Pritchard  says,  be  immersed  lor  the  rem,ission  of 
sins.     The  womiin  trembles.     Nothing  is  seen  without 
but  fearfiil  darkness;  the  storm  rides  aloft  and  howls  a- 
roand  the  iittle  cabin.     Ah,  says  tshe  dying  woman   i 
thought  you  said  "his  yoke  was  easy  and  his  burden 
light-     I  am  too  sick  to  turn  in  my  bed.     1  find  that  to- 
day is  not  the  day  of  salvation.     Go  says  Mr.  PritchariJ 
and  ger.  me  a  moat  tr  >  igh  or  a  trough  dug^  that   1    may- 
immerse  this  woman.     I  may  launch  into  eternity  be- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  185 

fore  that  can  be  done,  says  the  woman.  This  is  no  fan- 
cy sketch.  The  like  has  happened  in  this  conntry. 
'  A  man  may  get  his  back  broke  and  cannot  be  im- 
mersed. Yet  Mr.  Pritchard  would  let  the  man  go 
down  to  hell  in  despair,  because  he  cannot  be  immers- 
ed. This  subject  is  enough  to  warm  any  ones  heart 
— I  feel  a  holy  zeal.  My  heart  burns  within  me. — 
God's  religion  is  a  universal  religion, — a  gospel  that 
all  can  now  receive.  Yes,  it  is  a  universal  religion — 
••  Go  into  all  the  w^orld,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  eve- 
ry creature."  Here  baptism  is  not  made  the  ^iiie  rjua- 
iion  in  order  to  pardon.  John  says,  he  that  believetb 
is  born  of  God.  The  gentleman  cannot  find  where  i? 
is  said,  he  that  is  baptized  is  born  of  God.  Baptism  is 
not  the  condition,  nor  prayer — faith  is  the  condition. 

Mr.  Campbell  believes  that  all  the  absolving  power 
of  the  blood  of  Christ  is  in  the  water.  His  words,  as  I 
find  them  in  the  Christian  System,  are:  "  The  ab- 
solving or  pardoning  power  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ir- 
transferred  to  water."  Here  is  water  salvation  for 
you  !  The  pardonm^;  power  transferred  to  water  !  In- 
deed !     Are  you  prepared  for  such  doctrine  as  this  ? 

The  gentleman's  baptismal  regeneration  is  Roman 
Catholicism,  as  1  will  now  prove,  by  leading  D'Au- 
bigne's  History  of  the  Reformation. 

[Here  Mr.  Terrell  read  some  passage  from  D'Aubig- 
ne,  to  show  that  Romanists  believe  in  baptizmal  re- 
generation, but  as  he  did  not  refer  to  the  page,  1  am 
unable  to  find  it.] 

Now  you  see  where  the  gentleman  stands.  Here  is 
where  the  gentleman  gets  his  baptismal  regeneration. 
He  has  to  go  back  to  the  holy  mother  !  His  doctrine 
and  Romanism  are  the  same.  This  1  have  now  proved, 
and  he  cannot  escape.  You  see  now  who  it  is  that  is 
related  to  the  holy  mother.  Mr.  Pritchard  is  the  man. 
He  believes,  with  Mr.  Campbell,  that  the  pardoning 
power  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  is  transferred  to  water, 
and  I  have  now  shown  that  Roman  Catholics  believe 
the  same. 


186  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

He  now  can  talk  about  "coming  out  of  Babylon,'^ 
for  he  holds  the  same  doctrine  with  old  Mystery  Bab- 
ylon herself.  You  now  see  where  these  self-called 
Reformers  are  driven  to.  They  hold  the  same  doc- 
trine relative  to  the  pardon  of  sin,  held  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church. 

I  believe  in  a  system  of  salvation  that  can  reach  man 
in  every  condition  in  which  it  can  possibly  find  him, 
and  bring  pardoning  mercy  to  his  soul.  1  believe  in 
bible  religion,  which  says,  "  now  is  the  accepted  time 
and  now  is  the  day  of  salvation  :"  but  1  do  not  believe 
in  the  doctrine  of  my  friend,  which  saySj  now  is  not 
the  accepted  time,  but  some  future  time  when  the  per- 
son can  be  immersed.  I  believe  in  a  religion  which 
says,  "Whosoever  will,  let  him  come,  and  partake  of 
the  water  of  life  freely  ;"  and  not  in  the  religion  of 
Mr.  Pritchard,  which  says  to  the  man  on  the  dying 
bed,  you  cannot  come  unless  you  can  be  immersed. 
No,  Christian  friends ;  bless  the  Lord,  faith  is  the  con- 
dition and  the  only  condition.  This  blessed  doctrine^ 
thank  God,  of  justification  by  faith,  can  save  the  poor 
sinner  with  his  back  broken,  which  would  render  it 
impossible  for  him  to  be  immersed.  This  blessed  doc- 
trine, thanks  to  God,  brings  comfort  to  the  soul  of  the 
dying  man,  without  telling  him  that  he  must  be  lirst 
dipped  in  some  pond,  or  that  a  trough  must  be  made, 
during  which  time  he  might  launch  into  eternity. 

Christian  friends,  you  need  not  be  surprised  at  my 
speaking  warm  on  this  .sabject.  1  feel  that  I  am  vin- 
diceting  the  great  vital  principle  oi'  heart-felt  religion. 
Many  of  you  who  hear  me  to-day,  have  felt  its  hallow- 
ed influences,  and  can  remember  well  when  it  lirst  en- 
tered your  hearts.  Who  would  exchange  this  blessed 
religion,  this  blessed  assurance  of  acceptance  with 
God,  for  that  which  depends  on  the  administrator  of 
baptism,  or  that  which  depends  on  health  and  the  op- 
portunity of  being  immersed? 

The  Lord  can  speak  peace  to  the  soul  of  the  sinner, 
on  the  sick  bed  or  a  hundred  miles  from  an  adminis- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  187 

trator  of  baptism,  and  he  has  promised  that  he  will  do 
it,  as  I  have  already  shown.  He  can  believe  in  Jesus 
in  any  place,  and  in  any  circumstances;  and  he  that 
believeth  in  him  is  passed  irom  death  into  life.  The 
prophet  said,  he  that  believeth  in  him  shall  not  be 
confounded.  Here,  on  this  position,  I  stand,  and  from 
it  I  cannot  be  moved.  This  doctrine  has  stood  the  test 
of  opposition  for  ages,  and  ever  must  stand.  From 
here  the  gentleman  cannot  move  me. 

You  see  then,  that  he  has  made  a  most  signal  failure^ 
and  that  I  have  established  a  proposition,  which  over- 
turns his  doctrine  at  one  sweep.  Out  of  this  difficulty 
he  never  can  escape.  Here  I  shall  hold  him.  There 
is  no  alternative.  Fail  he  must. 
Time  expired. 

MR.  PRITCHARD's  THIiiD  ADDRESS 3rD    TI.'V, 

Gentlemen  Moderators: 

There  were  some  things  in  the  last  speech  of  Mr.  Ter- 
rell that  I  was  glad  to  hear  from  him,  and  things  too, 
which,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  he  will  wish  he  had  saved 
for  another  occasion  ;  but  before  noticing  these  things, 
I  will  briefly  notice  a  few  passages  introduced  by  him 
in  his  first  speech,  and  offer  one  or  two  more  arguments 
in  support  of  my  position.  To  prove  justification  hy 
faith  only,  he  quoted  the  passage,  "  as  Moses  lifted 
lip  the  serpant  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the 
"Son  of  man  be  lifted  up  ;  that  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life."  Now, 
upon  this  I  remark.  1.  That  itis  not  pardon,  but  "  e- 
ternal  life"'  in  the  w^orld  to  come  that  is  here  promised 
to  the  believer;  which  life,  Mr.  Terrell  dare  not  say, 
is  obtained  by  faith  only,  without  any  obedience.  2. 
When  it  is  said,  "whosoever  believeth,  shalf  have  so 
and  so,  it  is  always  said  upon  the  supposition  that 
every  believer  does  ?ind  will  obey  the  Lord.  3.  The 
Israelites,  when  "  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the 
wilderness,"  were  not  saved  from   death  by  faith  oivyy 


18S  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

but  by  and  act  of  faith, — in  obedience  to  the  commanri 
*'  Loo/t  upon  the  serpent  of  brass,  and  live.''*  They  did 
look,  as  the  Lord  commanded,  and  "  If  a  serpent  had 
bitten  any  man,  when  he  beheld  the  serpent  of  brass,  hr 
lively  Num.  21:8.  They  were  saA^ed  by  an  art  of 
faith, — by  physical  action, — in  obedience, — when  they 
Inolxd  as  the  Lord  commanded.  "  Even  so."  Mark 
that  ^^  Even  so!^''  "Even  so  must  the  Son  of  man  bf 
lifted  up,"  that  whosoever  will  do,  as  the  Israelites  did. 
h'Uf^vc  and  do  all  things  spoken  and  commanded. 
"  shall  not  perish,  but  have  eternal  life."  Mr.  Terrell 
d'lve  not  say  that  eternal  life  is  in  this  world  ;  nor  that 
it  is  obtained  by  faith  alone.  Nor  will  he  make  such 
a  blockhead  of  himself,  as  to  say  ihnt pardon  of  sins, 
^•nd  eternal  life  are  one  and  the  same  thing.  I  know 
he  is  great  for  idcnf\ty,  but  he  will  not  make  these 
identical.  If  not,  why  does  he  quote  this  passage 
which  speaks  only  of  eternal  life,  to  prove  that  pardon 
is  by  faith  only  ? 

This  is  one  of  the  ways  that  Methodists  have  of  dis- 
posing of  the  words  of  Peter,  "  be  baptized  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins  ;  and  the  other  is,  to  make  fun  of  what 
Peter  preached,  by  singing  : 

*'Ho  fvpry  mother,  son  and  dancfhter, 
Kerens  the  gospel  in  the  water." 

It  was  well  for  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  that 
they  had  not  learned  to  ridicule,  and  make  fun  of 
what  the  Lord  commanded.  If  they  had  been  favoreii 
with  a  daring  Infidel,  in  the  form  of  a  Methodist  Cir- 
cuit Rider,  they  might  have  had  a  great  deal  of  fun. 
when  Moses  put  forth  the  command,  "  Look  upon  the 
serpent  of  brass,  and  live/'  by  singing: 

"H(s  f?very  mother,  pon  and  ral-r., 
Here's  the  gospel  in   the  snake.^* 

If  the  Israelites  had  acted  thus,  would  they  have  been 
saved  from  the  dreadful  bite  ot  the  serpants  ?  We 
kiiov/  thev  would  not.     How  then  can  a  man  who,  in 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  181> 

vi-ew  of  the  language  of  the  Spirit,  "  be  baptized  for 
remission  of  sins,"  make  a  song  for  the  vulgar  and 
low-minded  to  turn  into  ridicule  this  command,  ex- 
pect to  be  saved  ?  O;  that  Methodists  had  the  faith 
of  the  Sons  of  Israel,  how  many  of  them  might  be 
healed  of  the  dreadful  bite  of  the  old  serpent, — the 
DeviL  They  knew  that  the  serpent  of  brass  could  not 
heal  them,  but  that  the  Lord  could ;  cnnH.ding  in  his 
promise,  they  obeyed  his  command,  and  [,¥  obedience 
were  restored  to  life  and  health.  So  v/e  know  that, 
neither  baptism,  nor  any  other  command  can  save  us, 
but  we  know  that  God  can,  co7i/idi?tg  in  his  v/ord,  w^e 
■.)bey,  and  in  obedience  the  Lord  saves  us  from  sin. 
The  word  of  God  leads  us  to  faith,  faith  to  feeling; 
teeling  to  action,  and  action  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  by 
which  our  sins  are  washed  away. 

He  quoted  a  verse  in  the  13th  of  Acts  .  ''  All  that 
believe  ^re  justilied  from  all  things,  from  which  they 
could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses;"  which 
means  no  n)ore  than  all  the  believers,  qv  all  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ  are  justiiled  in  a  way  in  which  they 
could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses.  We  read 
in  another  pasc?age.  that,  ''Many  of  the  Rulers  of  the 
Jews  believed  on  him,  but  for  fear  of  the  people  they  did 
not  confess  him."  Were  they  saved '^  Were  thev 
justified  Mr.  Terrell  ?  You  know  they  v/&re  not.-^- 
But,  why  were  they  not?  Because  faith  alone  would 
not  justify  them.  Because  they  did  not  openly  confess* 
him  by  submitting  to  his  authority. 

By  the  way,  I  remember  the  arentleman  told  you, 
that  I  had  ''  crossed  my  own  track,"  in  saying  the 
epistles  were  written  to  Saints.  Did  I  not  affirm  on 
yesterday,  that  the  epistles  were  written  to  the  "  vSaints 
■Aud  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus,"  and  not  to  infants,  as  he 
vainly  supposed  ?  Strange  that  a  Methodist  preacher 
could  make  such  an  assertion.  That  the  epistles 
were  written  to  the  Saints,  is  something  that  Metho^l-, 
isJs  never  knew  till   they  learned  it  of  us;  and  it  is 


100  DEBATE  05  BAFTISM'' 

something  that  they  do   not  understand  yet  very  welJ^ 
from  the  use  Mr.  Terrell  has  made  of  the  epistles. 

t>.  My  sixth  tirgument  shall  be  drawn  from  the  fact, 
that  the  Apostles  baptized  all  believers  as  soon  as  tliey 
confessed  faith  in  Christ.  On  the  day  of  Pentacost. 
Peter  preached  Christ  to  the  people,  and  commanded 
them  to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  their  sins, 
and  three  thousand  gladly  received  the  word,  and 
were  baptized  the  same  day  for  remission  of  sins. 
■Acts  2:  41. 

Philip  went  down  to  the  city  of  Samaria,  and  preach- 
ed Christ  nnto  them  ;  and  "  when  they  believed,  they 
were  baptized,  both  men  and  women."'  At  Samaria, 
Simon  believed,  and  ^vas  baptized  immediately  by 
Philip.     Acts  8:  12,  13. 

Philip  heard  the  Eunoch  reading  the  Scriptures ; 
aad  Philip  began  at  the  same  Scripture,  and  preached 
unto  him  Jesus.  When  he  heard  the  arguments  of 
Philip,  he  said  :.  "  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
son  of  God  ;"  so  Philip  baptized  him  on  the  spot,  and 
he  went  on  his  way  rejoicing.     Acts  8:  38. 

Cornelius  sent  for  Peter  to  tell  him  "  what  to  do,  and 
words  by  which  he  should  be  saved'''  Peter  preached 
(Jhrist  unto  him  and  his  friends  ;  and  while  speaking  of 
Christ,  said  :  ''  To  him  give  all  the  prophets  wntness, 
that  through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  shall  re- 
ceive remission  of  sins."  But,  no  sooner  did  he  be- 
fieve,  than  Peter  "  commanded  him  to  be  baptized  m 
the  'lame  of  the  Lord."  Here  we  see,  that  in  '-telling 
him  words  by  which  he  should  be  saved,'^  he  told  tiirn 
to  b".Iieve  and  be  baptized.     Acts  10,  48. 

Lydia  heard  Paul  preach  at  PhiUppi,  "by  the  riv^r 
side, '  and  before  she  left  the  river,  she  believed,,  and 
was  baptized.  Acts  16:  13,  15.  K  Mr.  Terrell  had 
been  there,  I  really  believe  he  w^ould  have  thought,, 
and  reported  Paul  to  be  a  "  Campbellite/'  for  being  in 
such  haste. 

Mr.  Terrell  alluded  to  the  conversion  of  the  Philip- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  191 

plan  Jailer,  about  like  he  and  his  party  generally  quote 
the  commission.  They  generally  quote  it :  ''  He  that 
believeth,  &c.,  shall  be  saved,  and  lie  that  believeth 
not,  shall  be  damned.'  What  they  mean  by  the  "  &c," 
1  never  could  tell,  unless  they  mean  by  it  the  mourner's 
bfnch.  He  told  you  that  Paul  told  the  Jailer  to  be- 
lieve, but  he  forgot  to  tell  you  that  Paul  also  baptized 
him  -'the  same  hour  of  the  night;'"  and  that  after  his 
baptism,  he  rejoiced,  as  did  the  Eunoch.  Acts  16:  33. 

"Many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed,  and 
were  baptized."  Acts  18:  8. 

These  passages  show  that  the  Apostles  always 
preached  Christ,  and  as  soon  as  the  people  believed 
that  he  was  the  Son  of  God,  they  baptized  them,  as 
Peter  did,  "  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Add  to  this, 
that  there  is  not  one  man  in  all  the  New  Testament, 
from  the  time  Christ  said,  "  Go  preach  the  gospel  to 
every  creature,"  to  the  final  Amefi  in  Revelation,  who 
is  said  to  be  pardoned  before  he  was  baptized.  I  chal- 
lenge Mr.  Terrell  to  show  one.  Let  him  show  where 
one  is  said  to  be  pardoned,  and  I  will  show  where  he 
was  baptized.  This  fact  meets  every  thing  he  has 
said  about  justification  by  faith  ;  for  every  one  of  those 
who  were  said  to  be  justified  by  faith,  by  grace,  or  by 
the  blood  of  Christ,  were  baptized  before  they  were 
said  to  be  justified  by  any  thing. 

7.  My  seventh  argument  is  founded  upon  four  pas* 
sages  in  the  epistles  :  "  Christ  loved  the  Church,  and 
gave  himself  for  it ;  that  \\e  might  sanctify  and  cleanse 
it  with  wASiunG  of  water  by  the  word."  Ephesians  5;  26. 

Speaking  of  the  unclean,  Paul  says:  "And  such 
were  some  of  you,  but  you  are  icashed,  but  you  are 
sanctified,  but  you  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God."  1st  Corinthians, 
6:  11. 

'•  Not  by  works  of  righteousness  whicii  we  have  done , 
but   according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,'^  (by   faith 


XS2  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

alone  ?    No,  no  ;  but)  "  by  the  ivashing  of  regeneratioJi, 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Titus  3:  5. 
•'The  like  figure  where  unto,  even  baptism,  doth    also 
/iow  save  us,  bv  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  1  Pet. 
3:  21.  "^ 

Now,  in  these  four  passages  we  have  the  design  of 
baptism  so  plainly,  and  clearly  taught,  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  mistake  it.  We  learn,  first,  That  it  was  the 
purpose  of  Christ,  whe  he  give  himself  for  the  church, 
'to  sanctifq  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the 
word.''  Second.  When  the  Corinthians  were  made 
free  from  their  uncleanness,  they  were  "washed,  ami 
Justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  3d.  That  we  are 
now  saved  by  X\iG  w x^msG  of  regeneration."  4th.  That 
•baptism  noio  saves  us,  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ."  If  we  are  now  saved  by  baptism,  justified 
when  we  are  washed  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  sanc- 
tified and  cleansed  by  the  washing  of  water  by  the  word, 
does  it  not  follow  that  baptism  is  essential  to  pardon':' 
J  will  not  ask  Mr.  Terrell  to  reply  to  this,  for  I  know  he 
will  never  try.  He  will  not,  he  has  not,  he  cannot  re- 
ply to  my  arguments.  I  have  now  offered  seven  argu- 
ments, and  not  one  of  them  has  he  replied  to.  I  want 
him  to  do  his  best.  1  want  him  to  show  that  "  repent,' 
and  be  baptized  for  remission  of  sins,"  means  nothing 
more  than  remission  of  sins  by  faith  only.  Let  him 
show  how  the  words,  ''  arise,  and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  away  they  sins,"  mean  that  baptism  is  not  essen- 
lial  to  pardon 

Instead  of  replying  tome,  he  had  to  turn  aside  ta' 
tell  you  that  1  am  "very  good  naturcd'"  this  mornirtg. 
Well,  I  am  always  good  natured  when  I  am  not  Ul- 
raatured.  and  always  in  a  pleasant  moorf  when  J  am  ru»t 
unpleasantly  situated. 

I  must  nov/  notice,  not  his  Scripture  arguments,  but 
his  "sick  woman,"  "blind  man,"  and  "  crippled  buy' 
objections  to  my  proposition.      His  first  was,  that  ine 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  103 

Lord  says,  ''  Xow  is  the  day  of  salvation ;"  and  there- 
fore baptism  cannot  be  for  remission  of  sins.  The 
objection  is  this  :  The  Lord  says  the  time  for  pardon  is 
right  NOW,  but  we  put  it  off  tell  we  can  go  to  the  wa- 
ter, which  will  take  ten  or  fifteen  minutes,  and  in  some 
cases  the  whole  of  one  hour,  and  therefore  it  must  be 
wrong.  This  objection  comes  upon  us  heavily,  when 
we  consider  that  it  is  from  a  man  who  is  in  the  habit 
of  Keeping  the  people  days,  weeks,  months,  and  even 
years,  fh/ing  on  the  coals  of  conviction,  and  crawling 
around  the  mourner's  bench  trying  to  "  get  religion.' 
To  correspond  with  his  faith  and  practice,  the  commis- 
sion should  have  read  :  he  that  repents,  and  comes  to 
the  bench,  and  prays  for  failh,  shall  get  religion.  In- 
stead of  telling  the  people  to  ''repent,  and  be  baptized 
for  remission  of  sins,"  Peter  should  have  said,  repent, 
and  come  to  the  mourner's  bench,  and  pray  for  laith. 
Eut  why  come  to  the  mourner's  bench  ?  Because  it 
is  warmer  here,  and  because  the  Lord  has  ovmed  it,  and 
blessed  it  in  the  conversion  of  thousands."  The  Lord 
own  such  an  institution  !  What  daring  wickedness  ! 
The  history  of  the  conversion  of  the  Eunoch  should 
read  :  And  he  commenced  at  the  same  Scripture,  and 
told  him  how  one  was  converted  at  the  mourner';^ 
bench,  another  at  his  work,  and  another  when  he  saw 
Buck  put  his  head  under  the  yoke,  and  finished  his  re- 
marks by  saying,  the  Lord  will  bless  men  as  soon  in 
one  place  as  another,  and  as  soon  at  one  thing  as  an- 
other, for  now  is  the  time.  And  the  Eunoch  said.  See 
here  is  a  slab,  what  hinders  me  to  come  to  the  bench< 
and  pray  for  faith.  The  circuit  preacher  said.  If  you 
have  a  desire  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  you  may. 
He  answered,  This  is  my  desire.  So  they  went  down 
on  to  the  bench,  both  the  preacher  and  the  Eunoch, 
and  he  prayed  for  him.  And  when  the  came  up 
'' fi orri:'' X\iQ  bench,  the  Eunoch  "had  Holy  Ghost  re- 
ligion." 

This   is   no  misrepresentation   of  Methodism ;  '::  .- 

m' 


iS4  BEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Methodism  as  it  is,  and  Mr.  Terrell  will  not  say  that  I 
slander  them;  for,  from  him,  from  what  I  have  heard 
him  say,  and  seen  him  do,  I  could  have  learned  it  all, 
if  i  had  not  known  it  before.  Now  is  it  not  strange, 
that  a  man  who  advocates  such  things  and  practices 
such  things,  can  stand  up  here  and  say,  that  the  Apos- 
tles taught  positive  falsehoods,  because  one  passage 
says,  "  Now  is  the  time  ?"  The  Apostle  was  talking 
about  the  obedience  of  the  brethren,  and  says,  "  Now 
is  the  time,"  which  means  no  more  than  that  you 
should  obey  to-day,  and  n-ot  put  ofi'  till  to-morrow  what 
you  should  d^  to-day. 

His  second  objection  was,  that  if  a  woman  is  sick, 
and  too  sick  to  be  baptized  before  she  dies,  she  must  be 
damned,  if  baptism  is  essential  to  parden.  Upon  this 
I  remark,  first.  That  if  she  understood  her  duty,  and 
wilfully  refused  to  do  the  will  of  God  till  it  was  too 
late,  it  is  her  own  fault,  and  not  the  fault  of  the  Bible, 
if  she  is  damed. 

2.  If  she  never  understood  her  duty,  and  never  had 
an  opportunity  of  obeying  the  Lord,  he  will  not  re- 
quire it  of  her;  for  he  requires  nothing  that  is  impossi- 
ble. For  example :  Paul  preached  "  to  make  all  men 
see  ;"  bjiit  a  man  who  is  born  blind  is  not  required  to 
,see,  for  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  see.  God  says, — 
*'  This  is  my  Son  ;  hear  y©u  him  ;^'  but  a  man  who  is 
deaf  i'Tom.  his  birth  is  Eot  required  to  hear,  for  he  can- 
not do  it.  The  Lord  requiires  all  men  to  confess  with 
their  mouth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  but  a  man  who 
is  a  mute  is  not  req^iired  to  confess  with  his  mouth. — 
John  Wesley,  the  father  of  Methodism,  in  answer 
to  a  similar  objection  upon  this  same  subject,  said,  (and 
so  say  I)  "Indeed,  where  it  (baptism)  cannot  be  had, 
the  case  is  different ;  but  extraordinary  cases  do  not 
make  void  a  standing  rule.^^  Doc.  Trac.  p.  251. 

3.  It  is  Mr.  Terrell,  and  not  me,  who  teaches  that 
baptism  is  essential  to  eternal  salvation.  I  make  it  es- 
sential to  the  present  salvation  from  sin  only ;  but  Mr. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  195 

Terrell  and  his  party  make  it  essential  to  eternal  sal- 
vation in  the  world  to  come.  Did  I  not  prove  that  Mr. 
Terrell  and  his  party  believed,  "  that  unbaptized  in- 
fants are  out  of  the  church,  without  any  provision  for 
their  eternal  well-being  ?"  Did  I  not  prove  that  they 
believed  them  to  be  "  children  of  wrath,  and  liable  to 
eiirnal  damnatiGn?''  Now  hear  what  they  teach  in 
reference  to  adults.  '•  Baptism  doeth  now  save  us,  if 
we  live  answerable  thereto  ;  if  we  repent,  believe,  and 
obey  the  Gospel :  supposing  this,  as  it  admits  us  into  the 
church  here,"  (Now  mark)  "  So  into  glory  hereafter.''^ 
Doc.  Trac  ,  p.  249.  That  is  the  doctrine  his  "  sick  wo- 
rmian" opposes.  We  have  to  meet  such  objections  to 
the  truth  from  Infidels  and  Universalists,  as  well  as 
ftom  Methodists.  Such  objections  are  the  offspring  of 
innidelity,  and  the  brats  of  unbelief;  and  are  resorted 
to  only  in  the  absence  of  something  better  to  say. — 
Mr.  Terrell  had  forgotten  that  he  is  the  advocate  of 
sprinkling  when  he  made  this  objection ;  for  he  cer- 
tainly did  not  intend  to  say  that  this  woman  was  too 
sick  to  have  a  few  drops  of  water  sprinkled  upon  her. 
Truth  will  out. 

But,  his  crowning  objection  was,  that  my  doctrine 
is  Catholicism.  1  was  pleased  to  hear  this  objection, 
because  it  gives  me  an  opportunity  of  showing  you 
whose  doctrine  is  Catholicism,  which  I  will  now  do. 
I  hold  in  my  right  hand  Catholicism,  and  in  my  left 
Methodism.  Hear  their  "  ceremonies  used  in  the  bap- 
tismal services,"  and  you  can  see  whether  Methodism 
and  Catholicism  are  not  clearly  related  on  this  subject. 
The  questions  to  the  person  to  be  baptized  are  the  fol- 
lowing : 

Catholic. — "  Dost  thou  renounce  the  devil  and  all 
his  works,  all  his  angels,  and  all  his  service,  and  his 
pomps?"     Answer:  "  I  do  renounce." 

Methodist. — "  Dost  thou  renounce  the  devil  and  all 
his  works,  the  vain  pomp  and  glory  of  the  world,  with. 
^11  covetQus  desires  of  the  same?" 


19(5  DEBATE  ON  BAPTIS.H 

Answa  :  "  I  renounce  them  all." 

Catholic. — '•  Dost  thou  believe  in  God  the  Father 
Almighty,  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth  ?  Dost 
thou  believe  in  Jesus  Christ  his  only  Son  and  Lord  ?" 

Answer:  "I  do  believe." 

Methodist.—"  Dost  tliou  believe  in  God  the  Father 
Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven  and  earth?  and  in  Jesus 
Christ  his  only  begotten  Son  and  Lord?" 

Answer  :  "All  this  I  steadfastly  believe." 

Catholic. — "  Dost  thou  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
the  holy  Catholic  church,  the  communion  of  saints,  the 
remission  of  sins,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  life 
eternaW^ 

Answer  :  "  J  do  believe o" 

Methodist. — "  Dost  thou  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghosts 
the  holy  Catholic  church,  the  communion  of  saints,  the 
remission  of  sin.s,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and 
I'ViTlasting  life  after  death  ?" 

Answer. — "  All  this  I  steadfastly  believe." 

Catholic. — "  Do  you  desire  to  be  baptized  ?" 

Answer:  'I  do  desire  it."  Hinton's  His.  Bap.,  p. 
187  and  319. 

Methodist. — Wilt  thou  be  baptized  into  this  failkr'' 

Answer. — ''This  is  my  desire."  Discipline,  p.  110. 

Here  is  Catholicism  as  large  as  life ;  and  here  we 
-ee,  that  the  Methodist  creed  is  not  all  new,  but  that 
they  have  copied  into  theirs  the  very  articles,  questions 
and  answers,  language,  ideas  and  all  of  the  Catholic 
•reed ;  and  then,  forced  them  upon  the  world  undei' 
he  imposing  nam.e  of  Methodism.  Truly  was  it  said 
by  a  Methodist:  "Ours  is  a  fluctuating  world.'  Its 
fashions  pass  away,  and  the  opinions  of  communities 
and  of  men  so  frequently  c-hange,  that  old  things  sorre- 
times  become  new.'^'' .  But  Methodism  is  Catholicism  in 
many  other  respects.  It  is  knovv^n  to  all  now  present, 
I  suppose,  that  the  Catholic  creed,  requires  all  the  sub- 
jects of  that  party  to  observe,  as  a  day  of  fastivg^  eve- 
ry Friday  in  the  year.     Now,  hear'  the  creed    of  ''  our 


A*,1)  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  iUT 

fljlAurcli^'  upon  the  duty  of  members.  "  To  ohssrve,  as 
^lays  of  fasting,  or  abstinence,  all  Fridays  in  the 
jear."  p. '89. 

AVhy  do  they  select  Friday,  as  the  da,y  on  which  to 
fast  ?     Becaui>3'th-e  mother  of"  our  church^'  did  so.     It 
is  imown  also,  that  a  Catholic  Priest  is  requii-ed  to  see 
the  nvsn  and  loonicn  oi  his  church  separately,  and  hear 
their  confessions.     A  Methodist  Circuit   Rider  is  re- 
quired "  to  meet  the  men    and    women  apart,  once  a 
quarter."  Discip.  p.  4.3.     In  obedience  to  this  we  fre- 
quently see  Methodist  preachers  visiting  around,  while 
the  men  are  from  home  on  business,   "  to  see  the  rmv 
■and  women  apaxt^     It  is  well  known  that  the  keystone 
of  the  great  Arcli  of  Catholicism  is,  that  the  Pope  and 
his  tiibe  are  the  successors  of  the  Apostles.     Methodist 
preachers  also  claim  to  be  their  successors.     See  Doc. 
Tracts,  p.  251 .     Yes,  every. circuit  rider,  if  he  has  only 
three  ideas  abovo  eLbric'c-bat,  and  hardly  sense  enoagL 
to  peddle  black  berries,  claims  to  be  a  successor  of  the 
Apostles  ;  and,  with  .all  the  spiritual  pride  of  a  Romap. 
Priest,  arrogoaitly,  and  UDbiushingly  tells  the  world, 
that  baptism  is  not  valid,  unless  it  is  admiuistered  hy 
:one  of  their  "  holv  order.'''      How  can  a  man  have  th:- 
audacity  to  .stand  up  here,  and  audaciously  tell  you 
that  my  doctrine  is  Catholicism?  when  it  is   known 
that  the  farniture  of  his  sanctuary,,  and  the  articles  of 
liis  creed  are  right  from  Rome. .   When  this  daughter 
of  Rome   married   and  set  up,  for  herself,   her  mother 
furnished  her  with  her  ideas,  her  language,  her  doc- 
trine, and  her  religion ;  and  although   she   does  not 
equal  her  mother  in   arrogance  and  unblushing  impu- 
dence, she  equals  in  audacity   any  other  daughter  her 
mother  ever  had.     I  deny  that  Catholics  believe,  as  1 
do,  \\\.^\Ja%lli,  rcvcn'ance,  and  a  cJiangc  of  heart  are  pre - 
requisites  to  baptism.     I  deny  that  they  ever  taught 
baptism  for  the  remission  of  the  sins  of  a  penitent  be- 
liever only.     It  is  a  slander  upon  the  truth,  only  equal- 
led by  his  slander  upon  the  sentiments  of  Bro.  Camp- 


|9S  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

bell,  to  which  I  next  invite  your  attentions.  He  rep- 
resents Bro.  Campbell  as  believing,  that  the  blood  of 
Christ  has  r\o  jwicer  but  vfYioX  is  in  the  water;  and  by 
quoting  one  or  two  sentences  only,  makes  him  ^ay 
precisely  the  opposite  of  what  he  does  say.  In  the- 
paragraph  to  which  Mr.  Terrell  alluded,  Bro.  Camp- 
bell is  commenting  upon  two  verses:  "Be  baptized, 
and  icash  away  thy  sins;"  and  "  They  i/Yz.sV/cr/ their 
robes,  and  made  them  lohite  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb." 
He  says,  "Here  are  two  things  equally  incomprehen- 
sible— to  wash  garments  white  in  blood,  and  lo  wash  a- 
way  sins  in  waterV^  (Now  mark.)  "  An  efficacy  is  as- 
cribed to  water  which  it  does  not  posses;?,  and,  as  certain- 
ly, an  efficacy  is  ascribed  to  blood  which  it  dois  not 
possess.  If  blood  can  whiten  or  cleanse  garments,  cer* 
tainly  water  can  wash  away  sins.  There  is,  then,  a 
transferring  (in  the  sacred  style)  of  the  efficacy  of  blood 
to  water;  and  a  transferring  of  the  efficacy  of  water 
to  blood.  This  is  a  plain  solution  of  the  whole  matter. 
God  has  transferred  in  some  way,  the  whitening  efficacy, 
or  cleansing  power  of  water  to  blood;  and  the  ab- 
solving or  pardoning  power  of  b.'ood  to  water."  C.  Sys- 
tem, p.  215. 

Now,  docs  it  require  more  than  an  ounce  of  com- 
mon discernment,  and  common  honesty  to  see,  that,  so 
far  from  Bro.  Campbell  teaching  that  water  now  pos- 
sesses all  the  pardoning  power  of  the  blood  of  Christ, 
he  teaches  that,  when  water  is  said  to  ''wash  away 
sins,"  "  an  efficacy  is  ascribed  to  water  which  it  does  not 
possess  V^  When  he  sa3's,  "  the  pardoning  power  of 
the  blood  of  Christ  is  transferred  to  v.'ater,"  his  mean- 
ing is,  that  ia  the  style  of  the  New  Testament  writers 
blood  is  said  to  do  what  water  alone  can  do — viz — 
wa.sk  a  thing  white;  and  water  is  said  to  do  what  blood 
alone  can  do — viz — wash  away  sens.  I  really  supposed 
that,  from  the  merited  lashing  Mr.  Terrell  received 
from  me  a  few  months  ago  at  this  place,  for  this  con- 
temptable  and  stupid  slander,  he  would  not  have  the 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  199 

boldness  to  reiterate  the  same  thing  again  in  my  pres- 
ence. Tliis  is  the  first  perversion  I  ever  heard  from 
Mr.  Terrell,  (but  not  the  last)  and  this  slander  upon 
the  sentiments  of  Bro.  Campbell  is  one  of  the  princi- 
pal things  that  brought  about  this  discussion.  But  of 
this  again. 

Time  expired. 

[mr.  Terrell's  3d  reply — 3d  prop.] 
(jentlemen  Moderators — 

I  will  commence  at  the  last  end  of  Mr.  Pritchard's 
speech.  He  said  that  according  to  our  book  of  Disci- 
pline, Article  9,  weare  saved  b}^  faith  only.  1  have  alrea- 
dy answered  that  1  should  think,  so  that  any  one  might 
understand  me.  ^ly  answer  was  that  ''oily'  there  meant 
the  necessary  requisite,  or  the  great  principle.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Discipline  faith  is  the  only  condition.  It  is 
the  only  terms  of  pardon  or  justification. 

He  wishes  to  know  whether  infants  are  justified  by 
faith,  and,  in  a  very  knowing  manner,  asks  what  the 
Discipline  means,  where  it  says,  "Wilt  thou  take  this 
woman  for  thy  wife,  and  cleave  unto  her  and  her  onJ.ij^'' 
He  asks  \^''<i'iJij''  here  means  five  or  six  other  women. 
I  answer  that  I  suppose  it  means  to  take  Xheonc  woman 
for  a  wife,  and  no  oilier.  This  he  knew  well  before, 
but  he  was  not  cOntent  without  throwing  out  some  evil 
insinuation.  I  am  in  hopes  the  gentleman  is  now  satis- 
fied on  this  head,  and  that  we  shall  hear  no  more  about 
cleaving  to  this  woman  and  her  onli/. 

He  tries  very  hard  to  make  this  audience  believe 
we  teach  justification  by  faith  only — faith  without  ac- 
tion, and  in  a  self-important  air  of  triumph,  says,  we 
have  left  the  bosom  of  Roman  Catholicism.  Weil,  I 
am  glad  of  that.  If  I  am  out  of  Romanism.,  it  is  that 
much  good — that  much>  right.  But  there  is  a  great  dif- 
ference between  myself  and  the  gentleman  here*  I 
h  ave  come  out  of  Romanism  but  he  is  just  going  into 
it.     I  am  glad  that  I  am  out  of  it,  and  would  be  glad  if 


200  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

the  gentleman  would  not  go  into  Roman  Catholicism, 
i  would  like  to  warn  hin?  and  keep  him  from  runninj^: 
into  Catholicism  if  I  could  but  he  appears  unconscious- 
of  his  advances  in  that  direction. 

Mr.  Pritchard  i-eads  from  our  book  of  Dicipline,  and 
then  from  the  Romish  creed,  to  show  that  we  hold  some 
doctrines  in  common  with  Roman  Catholics,  This  we 
do  not  deny  Catholics  believe  many  things  that  are 
true,  and  it  is  not  a  salficient  reason  for  me  to  let  go 
the  truth,  to  find  that  it  is  held  and  believed  by  Roman 
Catholics;  and  as  Mr.  Pritchard  sees  proper  to  leave 
Protestantism  and  go  back  to  Roman  Catholicism  he 
surely  cannot  think  it  WTong  in  our  church  to  hold  some 
articles  in  common  with  Catholics,  especially  where 
they  are  right.  If  he  sees  proper  to  go  to  Catholics 
from  Protestants,  he  cannot  blame  us  for  going  from 
Catholics  to  Protestants! 

The  gentleman  reads  much  from  Mr.  Wesley's  Doc- 
trinal Tracts  on  infant  baptism.  1  have  nothing  to  do 
with  Mr.  Wesley's  views  on  that  subject,  only  to  show 
that  he  has  been  misrepresented.  We  subscribe  to  no 
one  man's  views  in  every  thing,  only  so  far  as  he  goes 
with  the  word  of  truth:  but  in  the  main,  we  think  Mr. 
Wesley  was  in  the  right. 

Mr.  Pj'itchard  has  fallen  upon  the  error  that  caused 
the  great  apostacy.  The  doctrine  of  baptism  for  re- 
mission of  sins,  is  that  to  which  I  allude.  Pie  need  not 
refer  to  Mr.  Wesley.  He  did  not  believe  baptism  was 
for  pardon,  and  he  never  preached  such  a  doctrine. — ■ 
Pie  misrepresents  him  when  he  says  he  did.  1  have  his 
Doctrinal  Tracts,  and  I  know  what  he  taught  as  well 
at  least  as  Mr  Pritchard.  He  is  not  to  make  this  audi- 
ence believe  Mr.  Wesley  taught  any  such  doctrine;  and 
if  he  did  we  do  not  believe  all  he  taught.  In  the  main 
his  writings  are  good  and  received  by  us.  The  error  of 
the  gentleman,  I  repeat  it,  that  baptism  is  for  remission 
of  sins,  was  the  great  inlet  to  the  apostacy,  and  the  gen- 
tleman himself  in  preaching  that  doctrine,  is  getting 
}*ack  to  Romanism.     I  hope  this  will  satisfy  him. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  201 

He  quotes  from  St.  Paul  as  follows:  "For  they  being 
ignorant  of  God's  righteousness,  and  going  about  to  e^- 
tablish  their  own  righteousnes  have  not  submitted 
themselves  to  the  righteousness  of  God."  Evidently 
righteousness  here  means  pardon  of  sins,  for  they  alone 
are  righteous  who  have  their  sins  pardoned,  it  requires 
an  act  of  the  mind  to  bring  a  man  to  pardon,  and  not 
of  the  bod}/.  The  scripture  says,  "to  him  that  worketk 
?iol,h\il  be.ievcth;  his  faith  is  counted  to  him  for  righ- 
teousness." This  righteousness  1  say  means  pardon  of 
sins,  for  they  alone  are  righteous  who  have  their  sins 
pardoned.  Man  is  pardoned  then,  by  an  act  of  the  mind 
ofGod,  and  not  by  his  own  acts.  A  learned  writer  says, 
"It  requires  the  will  of  God  to  pardon."  But  according 
to  Mr.  Pritchard's  doctrine,  it  not  only  requires  a  mans 
faith,  an  act  of  the  mind  but  of  the  body;  yes,  and  not 
only  this  but  an  act  of  the  third  person.  The  sinner  must 
get  some  person  to  baptize  him. and  if  no  one  can  be  ob- 
tained to  administer  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  the  in- 
dividual sink*^  down  in  dispair.  According  to  his  doc- 
trine, before  anyone  can  obtain  pardon,  he  must  get  a 
third  person  willing  to  it,  and  ready  to  baptize  him. — 
God  intended  no  such  thing.  He  never  intended  that 
the  salvation  of  one  soul,  should  depend  upon  the  op- 
tion of  a  third  person.  In  obtaining  the  pardon  of  a 
man's  sins,  the  sinner  and  his  God  are  all  that  have 
and  thing  to  do  in  the  ca.se.  The  sinner  thank  God,  is 
notdepeneant  upon  any  one.  But  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  my  friend,  if  he  cannot  get  an  administra- 
tor, or  if  the  administrator  refuses  to  baptize  him,  he 
mu.st  be  lost.  This  doctrine  1  do  not  believe.  I  cannot 
believe  that  God  would  make  the  salvation  of  one  man's 
soul  depend  upon  the  will  of  another  man.  It  is  unrea- 
sonable. 

Mr.  Pritchardhas  a  great  deal  to  say  about  the  mour- 
ner's bench;  but  we  do  not  beHeve  the  mourners  bench 
is  a  condition  of  pardon.  Vv^e  might  retort  that  he 
makes  water  a  condition,  for  Mr.  Campbell  says  the  ab- 
solving quality  of  the  blood  of  Christ  is  transferred  to 


202  DEBATE  0J»  BAPTISM 

water  and  that  immersion  alone  is  the  act  of  taming  tc^ 
God. 

Abraham  was  justified  by  faith^  and  so  are  are  all  the 
spiritual  seed  of  Abraham.  This  I  will  show  from  Ro. 
4:  1.  "What  shall  we  say  then, that  Abraham  our  fath- 
er as  pertaining  to  the  fleshy  hath  found.  For  if  Abra- 
ham were  justified  by  works  he  hath  whereof  to  glory; 
but  not  before  God;  for  what  saith  the  scriptures:  Abra- 
ham believed  God  and  it  was  accounted  to  him  for  righ- 
teousness. Now  to  him'  that  worketh  is  the  reward  not 
reconed  of  grace;  but  of  debt;  but  to  him  that  worketh 
not,  but  believeth  in  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly, 
liis faith  is  counted  to  him  for  righteousness.  Ev^en  as 
David  also  discribetb  the  blessedness  of  the  man  unto 
whom  God  imputeth  righteousness  without  works;  say- 
ing, Blessed  is  the  man  whose  iniquiies  are  forgiven  and 
whose  sins  are  covered." 

Mr.  Pritchard  .says,  devils  beheTe.  Well,  in  James, 
2d  chapter,  the  apostle  speaks  of  a  justification  some 
26  years  after  Abraham's  justification,  and  Abra- 
ham is  presented  as  a  pattern  of  our  own  justification. 
He  is  the  pattern  of  the  faithful.  What  other  condition 
are  we  here  taught  but  faith?  Surely  none  other. — 
Faith  is  the  great  condition.  This  doctrine  will  stand 
in  spite  of  my  respectable  opponet — it  must,  and  will 
stand  forever.  3t  is  the  great  fundamental  doctrine  of 
the  Reformation  of  the  IGth  century. 

I  will  now  quote  Martin  Luther,  as  his  words 
are  found  in  D'Aubinie's  History  of  the  Refor- 
mation, page  202  :  *'  On  man's  part,  there  is  nothing 
that  goes  before  grace, — nothing  but  impotency  and 
rebellion.  There  is  no  moral  virtue  without  sadness, 
— that  is  to  say,  without  sin."  This  blessed  doctrine 
will  stand  forever.  The  rough  eloquence  of  Martin 
Luther  was  engaged  in  the  cause  of  justification  by 
faith  alone.  It  was  felt  that  it  was  the  cause  of  the 
gospel,  of  justice,  and  of  liberty,  which  was  then  to  be 
pleaded.  Faith  without  works  justifies,  and  this  doc- 
trine will  stand  forever.     He  that  believeth  with  all 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  203" 

the  heart,  belleveth  unto  righteousness.     This  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  gospel. 

Mr.  Pritchard  would  have  to  point  the  sick  woman, 
to  whom  1  called  his  attention,  to  some  brook,  pond  or 
meat  trough.  But  1  would  say,  in  the  language  of  Pe- 
ter, "  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things  from 
which  they  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses." 

The  ninth  article  of  our  Discipline  is  the  doctrine  of 
the  whole  Episcopal  church — also  the  Presbyterian  and 
Baptist  churches.  Not  that  part  of  the  Baptist  church 
that  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ. 

[Mr.  Pritchard  said.  Who  do  you  refer  to  ?] 

Mr.  Terrell  said,  I  do  not  know  that  I  am  bound  to 
tell.  I  think  that  the  New  Lights  deny  the  divinity  ot" 
Christ,  and  they  are  very  near  akin  to  you  [pointing  to- 
Mr.  Pritchard.] 

I  have  referred  the  gentleman  to  our  book  of  Disci- 
plin,  54th  page,  sections  2  and  3,  to  show  that  Mr. 
Pritchard  has  misrepresented  me,  when  he  says,  that 
our  creed  makes  justification  just  according  to  every 
man's  own  theory,  and  that  if  a  man  is  baptized,  he  is 
justified  without  faith.  We  hold  no  such  doctrine,  and 
the  gentleman  knows  it.  Our  doctrine  is,  that  the 
man  that  believeth  has  the  assurance  that  he  is  par- 
doned, and  of  everlasting  life.  "  All  the  prophets  bear 
Vv'itness  of  him,  that  through  his  name,  whosoever  be- 
lieveth in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins."  Mr. 
Pritchard  stands  in  opposition  to  all  the  prophets. 

Luther  meant  just  what  Wesley  meant  by  justifica- 
tion by  faith  alone.  They  both  meant  just  the  doctrine 
of  the  bible,  and  that  is  just  what  I  mean;  and  if  f 
could  pin  this  doctrine  to  the  wings  of  the  wind,  or 
make  use  of  the  bellowing  thunder-tones,  I  would  teil 
it  to  the  benigted  nations  of  the  farthest  people  on  the 
globe,  and  in  the  language  of  Paul,  that  -'the  word  is 
nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy  heart,"  and 
that  if  "  thou  shait  believe  in  thy  heart,  in  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  confess  with  thy  mouth,  thou  shalt  be  saved! ' 
'-■^^ch  is  the  doctrine   of  the  scripture.      Such  is  the 


tit) 4  BEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

doctrine  i^uitable  to  poor  fallen  man.  It  makes  not 
his  salvation  depend  upon  any  one  but  him  self.  It  de- 
pends upon  no  act,  but  an  a,ct  of  the  mind  that  can  be 
performed  any  place  and  in  any  condition. 

The  man  with  his  back  broken  can  believe,  and  con- 
sequently can  comply  with  th«  only  condition  ;  but  if 
baptism  is  for  remission  of  sins,  as  Mr.  Pritchard  con- 
tends, he  is  lost.  The  gospel  has  no  good  news  for 
him.  It  simply  tells  him  of  a  way  of  salvation  that  ii- 
out  of  his  reach.  Away  with  such  doctrine.  Let  the 
old  doctrine  that  has  comforted  so  many  thousands  on 
a  dying  bed,  stand  forever. 

Time  expired. 

TMR.  PRTTCH.AHD's  FOURTH  ADDRLVS — oRD  FROT'. 

dentlemen  Moderators: 

As  Mr.  Terrell  has  agreed  for  the  accommodation 

of  th-e  I\Iod-erators  to  occup^^  but  /bz^r  hours  in  the  dis- 

•cussios^  of  hif5  proposition  to-morrov^^,  1  have  agreed  for 

his  accommodation  to  occupy  but  four  hours  to-d.ay. — 

This,  then,  is  my  last  .speech. 

I  have  offered  scve/n  s-eparate  -and  distinct  arguments 
m  support  of  m}'  position ;  to  but  one  of  them  all  hat^ 
the  gentleman,  who  is  falsely  called  my  opponent,  al- 
luded, and  to  none -of  them  has  he  mad-e  any  reply  ; 
and,  of  course,  cannot  now,  for  they  v/ere  ail  introduc- 
ed before  my  last  speech.  Th-ey  m;ust  go  to  the  world 
unanswered  and  unreplied  to.  i  will  now  add  anoth- 
•er  to  these  seven,  which  shall  be  d-rawm,  not  from  the 
Bible,  but  from  Mr.  Terrell  and  his  party.  I  will  now 
prove  by  Mr.  Terrell  himself,  that  he  does  not  believe 
faith  is  the ■on/y  condition  of  pardon,  a,nd  that  my  pro- 
position is  true.  I  called  upon  Mr.  Terrell  some  time 
ago,  as  yom  all  remember,  to  t-ell  what  thd  word  con- 
dition me  ams,  mid  what  he  means  by  faith  being  the 
only  coiidit)ion  of  pardon.  He  told  you  that  conditioE 
means  principle,  and  that  by  faith  being  the  nnli/  con- 
dition, he  meant  that  it  was  the  only  principle  of  par- 
•don.     Well,   1  suppose,    if  my  learned  friend  shouU 


AXD  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  '20» 

s;peak  of  a  man's  religious  principles,  he  would  meaa 
by  that  language  his  religious  conditions;  and  if  he 
should  speak  of  a  man  being  in  a  bad,  condition,  he 
would  mean  that  he  is  in  a  bad  principle.  What  a 
learned  man  Mr.  Terrell  must  be  !  Well  may  he  be 
called  the  champion  of  Indiana!  1  did  not  ask  what 
condition  always  means,  but  what  does  it  mean  in  a 
"Contract  or  covenant?  What  does  it  mean  in  the 
Gospel  covenant?  It  never  did,  nor  never  can  mean 
principle.  It  sometimes  denotes  the  slate  of  men  and 
things,  but  never  their  principles.  In  a  contract  or 
covenant,  it  means  to  pay  or  return  an  equivalent. — 
Orabb  says,  "  Condition  respects  any  point  that  is  ad- 
mitted as  a  ground  of  obligation  or  engagement :  it  is 
used  for  the  general  transactions  of  men,  m  which  they 
reciprocally  bind  themselves  to  return  certain  equiva- 
lents,'' Synonymes,  p.  335. 

1  now  assert  that  Mr.  Terrell  does  not  believe  that 
faith  is  the  only  condition  of  pardon,  to  say  nothing  of 
its  being  the  "  only  condition."  Do  you  believe,  sir, 
that  our  faith  returns  to  God  an  equivalent  ^ov  pardon  f 
Do  you,  sir,  believe  that  our  faith  benefits  God  as 
much  as  pardon  benefits  us?  If  not,  then  you  do  not 
believe  your  own  assertion.  That  you  do  not  believe 
it,  I  will  now  prove  by  you.  You  remember  the  dis- 
course you  delivered  at  this  place  ?.gainst  the  "  small- 
er fry  of  Campbellism,"  I  suppose.  1  heard  it,  and  so 
did  more  than  fifty  others  who  are  now  present.  Now 
sir,  did  you  not  then  say,  that  we  are  bought  with  a 
price,  with  the  blood  ot  Jesus  Christ?  Did  you  not 
say,  that  Mr.  Campbell  agreed  with  you,  that  an 
equivalent  for  pardon  was  returned  to  God  by  the 
blood  of  Christ?  Did  you  not  say,  that,  "these  are 
my  sentiments,  and  these  are  the  sentiments  of  ]\[r. 
Campbell"?  Did  you  not  then  turn  to  me,  and,  with- 
out knowing  my  sentiments,  say,  '•  You  better  set  Mr. 
Campbell  right  before  you  attempt  to  set  us  right''  ? — 
Now,  sir,  permit  me  to  tell  you  that  I  believe  with  all 


209  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

my  heart  that  the  blood  of  Christ  is  the  condition,  and 
the  only  condition  of  pardon  ;  for  it  is  that,  and  that 
only  which  purchases  our  pardon.  It  is  the  price  of 
our  redemption.  I  believe  what  you  then  preached, 
and  although  your  discourse  was  designed  to  slander 
me,  you  dare  not  now  say,  that  you  believe  it  yourself. 
If  you  believe  that  we  are  redeemed  from  our  sins  by 
the  blood  of  Christ  paying  an  equivalent  for  our  par- 
don, you  do  not  believe  that  faith  is  the  condirtioii — 
that  faith  returns  an  equivalent  for  pardon.  My  bi- 
ble teaches  me  that  the  blood  of  Christ  is  the  condition 
of  pardon,  Grace  the  principle  upon  which  we  are  par- 
doned, and  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism  the  means 
thro'  which  we  receive  and  enjoy  pardon.  Neither  faith, 
repentance,  nor  baptism  is  the  condition.  They  are 
the  means,  not  the  condition  of  pardon.  Now,  I  ask, 
if  Mr.  Terrell  has  not  said  again  and  again  to-day, 
that  repentance  and  baptism  are  "  means  of  grace," 
and  "  means  of  pardon"?  They  are  not  the  condition, 
but  the  means ^  he  says,  and  so  say  I,  and  so  says  eve- 
ry man  who  understands  his  Bible.  He  tells  us,  that 
they  are  the  means  of  pardon,  and  yet,  that  they  are 
not  essential  to  pardon.  Are  not  the  means  ordained 
of  God  essential  to  the  end?  If  God  has  ordained, 
that  through  faith,  repentance,  and  baptism  as  the 
means  we  shall  receive  pardon,  I  ask,  it  we  can  re- 
ceive pardon  without  using  the  means?  Mr.  Terrell 
seems  to  think  we  can.  Well  may  your  Discipline 
say,  "We  Methodists  are  enthusiasts;  looking  after 
the  end  without  using  the  means.^^  p.  60. 

If  baptism  is  a  means  of  pardon,  it  is  essential  to 
pardon.  This  is  my  eighth  argument ;  and  it  is  a 
good  one  too,  for  Mr.  Terrell  says  it  is  true. 

I  must  now  review  the  ground  over  which  we  have 
traveled,  and  show  you  some  of  the  beauties  of  Mr. 
Terrell.  He  commenced  this  morning  by  telling  you 
that  he  appeared  before  you  with  feelings  of  solemni- 
ty ;  and  in  a  little  while  after  this,  he  was  talking; 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  207 

■about  "  ponds,"  ^^  horse-ponds,"  "  brick-ponds,"  "  mud- 
holes,"  and  "  meat  troughs."  He  is'  a  solemn  child 
truly  ! !  May  the  good  Lord  save  me  from  such  sol- 
emnity. His  vulgar  and  contemptible  remarks  upon 
the  meat  trough,  and  horse-pond,  deserve  not  to  be 
noticed. 

I  stated  in  my  first  speech,  that  he  who  wilfully  re- 
fuses to  be  baptized,  will  be  damned.  xMr.  Terrell  no- 
ticed this  by  saying,  "I  agree  with  Mr.  Pritchard,  that 
he  who  wilfully  disobeys  the  Gospel,  will  be  damned." 
Now,  in  this,  he  admits,  that  baptism  is  a  part  of  the 
Gospel  of  Christ;  for  hov/  can  a  man  v;ho  wilfully  re- 
fuses to  be  baptized,  wilfully  disobey  the  Gospel,  if 
baptism  is  not  a  part  of  the  Gospel?  A  little  after 
this,  he  boasted  that  his  gospel  was  a  universal  gos- 
pel, that  it  brought  good  news  to  men  without  bap- 
tism, for  it  had  no  baptism  in  it.  JVow  look  at  this  : 
he  who  wilfully  refuses  to  be  baptized,  wilfully  diso- 
beys th«  Gospel  of  Christ ;  but  the  Gospel  which  Mr. 
Terrell  preaches,  comes  to  men  without  baptism,  for 
it  has  no  baptism  in  it.  If  it  is  true,  as  he  says,  that 
baptism  is  a  part  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  and  also  true, 
as  he  says,  that  his  gospel  has  no  baptism  in  it,  does  it 
not  follow,  that  his  gospel  is  not  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
l)ut  another  gospel?  "  If  any  man,"  said  Paul,  '•  preach 
any  other  go.spel  unto  you,  let  him  be  accuvsed.^' 

While  speaking  upon  the  words  of  Peter,  ''  To  him 
give  all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  sUtall  receive  remission  of 
sins,"  he  said  :  "  Let  Mr.  Pritchard  show  where  one  of 
the  prophets  ever  said  that  the  people  should  be  bap- 
tized." When  he  said  this,  he  had  certainly  forgotten 
that  he  said,  while  discussing  the  action  of  baptism, 
that  the  Jews  learned  of  the  prophets  that  the  Christ 
'Was  to  baptize;  and,  therefore,  they  said  to  John  the 
Baptist,  "Why  do  you  baptize,  if  you  be  not  the 
Christ?"  While  debating  that  proposition,  he  saw  as 
<jJearly  as  he  ever  saw  any  thing,  that  the  prophets  did 


208  DEBATE  OK   BAPTISM 

teach  that  men  were  to  be  baptized ;  but  now  he  has 
discovered,  and  it. is  equally  as  clear,  that  the  prophets 
did  not  teach  that  any  one  should  be  baptized  :  and 
calls  upon  me  to  show  that  they  did.  1  suppose  he 
thinks,  that  he  is  a  very  poor  man  who  cannot  blow 
hot  and  cold  out  of  the  same  mouth. 

Baptism  cannot  be  for  remission  of  sins,  he  says,  for 
a  man  might  get  his  back  broke,  and  could  not  be  bap- 
tized. Shall  I  make  a  simpleton  of  myself  to  notice 
this?  As  well  he  might  say,  hearing  cannot  be  essen- 
tial to  faith,  for  there  are  some  who  cannot  hear. — 
Reading  cannot  be  essential  to  knowledge,  for  some 
have  lost  their  eyes,  and  cannot  read.  "  To  visit  the 
fatherless  and  widows  in  their  afflictions/'  cannot  be 
"  pure  and  undefiled  religion,"  for  a  man  might  get  his 
back  broke,"  and  could  not  visit  them. 

Newlites,  he  says,  deny  the  diviyiity  of  Christ,  and 
they  are  clearly  related  to  us.  They  do  not,  nor  never 
did  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ; — it  is  a  slander  upon 
that  people.  But  why  does  he  say  they  are  clearly  re- 
lated to  us?  Is  it  because  we  deny  the  divinity  of 
Christ?  Mr.  Terrell  dare  not  say  we  do.  Is  it  be- 
cause they  ball  and  rave  like  mad-men  in  their  meet- 
ings, just  as  Methodists  do  ?  Is  it  because  they  have  a 
mourner's  bench,  and  more  confidence  in  their  feelings 
and  dreams,  than  they  have  in  the  word  of  God;  just 
as  Methodists 'have?  Is  it  because  they  are  believers 
in  all  kinds  of  abstract  spiritual  operations  ;  just  as 
Methodists  are  ?  Are  these  the  reasons  ?  If  not,  why 
do  you  say  they  are  clearly  related  to  us?  Many  of 
them  are  with  us  now ;  but  they  were  not  with  us  till 
they  abandoned  the  unscriptural  absurdities  of  Meth- 
odism. 

Mr.  Terrell  complained   that   I  did  not    quote  the 
whole  of  the  ninth  article  in  their  Discipline.     Well, 
the  reason  is,  the  worthless  thing  contradicts  itself.-— 
The  first  part  of  it  says,  "  We  are  accounted  ri2:httx)us;; 
before  God,  onhj  for  the  merit  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  the 


AKD  THE  HOLV  SPIRIT.  i^09 

:5e<>on(3  part  says  :  "  Wherefore,  that  we  0,re  justified 
by  faith  only,  is  a  most  wholesoine  doctrine,  and  very 
full  of  comfort.'^  Now,  if  it  is  by  faith  ordy^  the  merit 
of  Christ  has  nothing  to  do  with  it;  and  if  it  is  by  the 
the  merit  of  Christ  only,  faith  has  nothing  to  do  with 
it.  Better  take  part  than  the  whole,  for  both  parts 
cannot  be  true.  Which  does  Mr.  Terrell  believe? — 
He  cannot  believe  them  both. 

As  Mr.  Terrell  has  repeatedly  asserted  that  all  the 
churches  are  with  him,  I  will  now  show  you  that  his 
own  is  against  him,  and  that  Mr.  Terrell  is  against 
himself  In  answer  to  the  question,  "  What  are  the 
benefits  we, receive  by  baptism?"  I  find  the  following 
in  "  Doctrinal  Tracts:" 

1.  "  The  first  of  these  is,  the  wasliing  away  the  guilt 
of  original  sin,  by  the  application  of  the  merits  of 
Christ's  death."  p.  240. 

Here  we  see,  that  it  is  in  baptism,  that  the  merits  of 
Christ's  death  are  applied  to  us.  Can  a  man  be  par- 
doned without  the  mci'its  of  Christ's  death  being  apph- 
ed  to  him  ? 

2.  "  By  baptism  we  enter  into  covenant  with  God  ; 
into  that  everlasting  covenant  which  he  hath  com- 
manded forever."  p.  247. 

Here  we  are  taught,  that  it  is  by  baptism  that  we 
enter  into  the  everlasting  covenant ;  so  without  bap- 
tism, we  are  out  of  the  covenant  of  promise.  Can  a 
man  who  is  an  alien  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel, 
and  a  stranger  from  the  covenants  of  promise,  having 
no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world,  be  a  pardoned 
man  ?  If  it  is  by  baptism  that  we  enter  into  the  cove- 
nant, is  it  not  essential  to  pardon  to  be  in  the  covenant? 
Mr.  Terrell  would  seem  to  think,  that  a  man  can  be 
pardoned  as  well  out  of  the  covenant,  as  in  it. 

3.  "  By  baptism  we,  are  adniitted  into  the  church, 
and  consequently  made  members  of  Christ,  its  head, ' 
p.  248. 

By  baptism  we  are  admitted  into  the  church,  and  by 
N 


3']0"  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

it  we  ai-e  made  members  of  Christ;  so,  of  course- 
without  baptism  we  are  not  in  the  church,  and  with- 
out it  we  are  not  members  of  Christ.  Can  a  man  be 
])ardoned  who  is  out  ot  Christ,  and  not  a  member  of 
Christ?  Yes,  we  are  told  by  Methodists — by  the  gen- 
eral conference  of  the  party,  that  by  baptism  we  are 
made  members  oi  Christ ;  and  yet,  Mr.  Terrell  says 
baptism  is  not  essential  to  pardon  !  There  must  be  as 
much  difference  between  his  gospel,  and  the  gospel  of 
the  general  conference,  as  there  is  between  his  gospel 
and  the  gospel  of  Christ.  But,  notwithstanding  that 
I\ir.  Terrell  denied  on  yesterday  this  item  of  his  party's 
creed,  and  is  doubtless  prepared  to  do  the  .-^ame  thing 
to-day,  I  am  prepared  to  prove  by  his  own  writing  that 
he  believes  what  he  then  denied. 

[Here  Mr.  Terrell  said — Will  you  please  to  read 
it  sir  ?] 

Mr.  Pritchard — I  will  sir,  that  this  audience  may  see 
that  you  have  not  advocated  in  this  discussion  what 
you  told  me,  before  the  discussion,  you  solemanly  be- 
lieved. In  your  third  letter  to  me,  you  say  :  "My  3rd 
proposition  presents  the  true  issue  and  nothing  else. 
There  is  no  issue  between  us  whether  repentance  and 
faith  be  necessary  to  pardon.  Nor  is  there  any  as  to 
baptism  beinsj  appointed  for  a  visible  induction  into  the 
rkurch  of  Gjd.  But  there  is  an  issue  whether  it  alone 
be  the  converting  act.  In  other  words,  whether  it  be 
essential  to  our  formal  forgiveness. — to  our  pardon, 
and  this  is  the  issue  presented  in  my  proposition." 

Now,  did  not  Mr.  Terrell  on  yesterday  solemnly  de- 
clare before  he?.ven  and  earth,  that  he  did  not  baptise 
persons  into,  but  because  they  were  in  the  «hurch  ? — 
Did  he  not  deny,  that  he  believed  that  we  are  inducted 
into  the  church  of  God  by  baptism  ?  You  all  know  he 
did.  Now,  here  he  says,  that  there  is  no  issue  as  to 
baptism  being  appointed  for  induction  into  the  church 
of  God.  He  believed  in  our  correspondence,  as  I  do, 
that  by  baptism  we  are  inducted  ifito  the  church,  but. 


AND  THE  KOLY  3PIP4T.  211 

new  he  says  he  does  not  believe  it.  I  told  you  that 
Mr.  Terrell  was  against  himself.  But  he  says,  also, 
"  there  is  no  issue  between  us,  whether  faith  and  re- 
pentance be  necessary  to  pardon,'"  yet  this  is  the  very- 
issue  he  has  been  making  all  day.  Utt  has  not  dared 
to  debate  the  issue  that  ke  made  himself, —  viz:  "that 
baptism  is  essential  to  our  formal  forgiveness;"  but 
has  been  trying  to  prove  all  day  that  faith  is  necessary- 
to  pardon  ;  the  very  thing  that  he  said  was  not  the  is- 
sue. Well,  it  is  the  best  he  can  do.  I  know  that  he 
cannot  and  dare  not  debate  the  issue  agreed  upon. 
But  we  mu.^t  hear  the  other  benefits  as  credited  to 
baptism  by  the  general  conference  : 

4.  "  By  baptism,  we  who  were  by  nature  children  of 
wrath,  are  made  the  children  of  God.''  p.  248.  "  By 
water  then,  as  a  ?«?(2/<'s,  the  water  of  baptism,  we  are 
regenerated  or  born  again  ;  v/hen  it  is  also  called  by 
the  Apostle.  'The  washing  of  regeneration.'  Our 
church  therefore  ascribes  no  greater  virtue  to  baptism 
than  Christ  himself  has  done."  p.  249. 

If  we  are  "  made  the  children  of  God"  by  baptism,  is 
it  not  essential  to  pardon  ?  If  it  is  true,  that  "  we  are 
regenerated  or  born  again"  by  ''the  lya/^r  of  baptism," 
does  it  not  follow,  that  it  is  essential  to  pardon  ?  But 
again : 

5.  "In  consequence,  of  our  being  made  children  of 
God,"  (by  baptisQi)  ''we  arc  heirs  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.'"  "  Herein"  (in  baptism)  "  we  receive  a  title 
to,  and  an  earnest  of,  a  kingdom  which  cannot  be 
moved.     Baptism  doth  iwivsave  ws."  p.  249. 

If  we  are  made  the  children  of  God,  and  tjie  heirs  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  baptism,  is  it  not  essential  to 
our  pardon  ?  If  in  baptism  Vv^e  receive  a  title  to,  and 
earnest  of,  the  kingdom,  is  it  not  essential  ?  How  can 
baptism  now  save  us,  if  it  does  not  save  us  from  sin, 
and  if  it  is  not  essential  to  pardon  ?  I  have  only  time 
1)0  make  one  more  quo^tation,  among  the  hundreds  that 
I  might  make  from  the  wTitings  of  Methodists: 


212  ITEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

"  Be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins.  Baptism 
administered  to  real  penitents,  is  both  a  means  and  a; 
^eai  of  pardon.  Nor  did  God  ordinarily  in  the  primi- 
tive church  bestow  this  on  any,  unless  through  this 
means."     Wesley's  Note  on  Acts  22:  16. 

I  agree  with  'Mr.  WesleV,  that  baptism  is  a  means 
of  pardon,  but  not  that  it  is  a  seal,  for  the  Apostle  says, 
"  After  that  you  believed,  you  were  sealed  by  the  Hoh^ 
Spirit  of  promise."  You  may  teli'me,  that  what  I  have 
:iow  read  from  the  writings  of  Methodists,  upon  the 
design  of  baptism,  does  not  agree  with  what  I  read, 
showing  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  without 
any  thing  else.  Well,  I  know  it  does  not ;  but  I  am 
.not  responsible  for  their  inconsistencies,  nor  for  their 
oontradicticns.  Tbey  ave  singular  teachers.  When 
they  speak  on  faith,  it  is  all  faith,  and  nothing  else  ;, 
but  when  they  get  on  to  baptism,  it  is  every  thing ; — 
it  brings  "us  into  the  church  here,"  and  takes  us  to 
■•  glory  hereafter." 

I  must  now  notice  again,  what  Mr.  Terrell  5!;aid 
about  Bro.  Campbell  believing  that  all  the  pardoning 
')Ower  of  the  blood  of  Christ  is  in  the  water.  "  To  the 
sacriPiCe  of  Christ,"  says  Bro.  Campbell,  we  always 
look  for  the  basis  of  our  pardon  ;  to  his  blood  that 
oieanses  from  ail  sin,  for  justification  and  personal  ac- 
ceptance ;  and  to  bis  word  we  look  for  counsel  and  in- 
struction in  Christian  piety  and  righteousness.  We 
are  as  dependent  upon  his  word  for  light,  as  we  are 
■2T)on  hi H  blood  for 'por don.'"'  C,  uSystem,  p.  50. 

Again : 

■'■  jBut  a  new  age  h.aviog  come,  and  Christ  having,  by 
a  more  perfect  sacrifice,  opened  the  way  into  the  true 
holy  place,  has  laid  the  foundation  for  perfecting  the 
^:onscience  b}'  a  real  and  full  remission  of  sins,  Vvdiich, 
by  the  virtue  of  his  blood',  terminates' not  upon  the  flesh, 
but  upon  the  conscience  of  the  sinner."  p.  334. 

Once  more  : 

"  You  can  see  vour  sins  washed  awav  in  the  hh'id 


AND  TEIE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  21*3 

that  was  shed  on  Mount  Calvary.  *  *  "^  *  Voii 
can  feel,  and  say  with  all  assurance,  that  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ  now  cleanses  you  from  all  sin."  p.  oo5. 

These  quotations  from  the  Christian  System,  the 
very  book  from  which  Mr.  Terrell  pretended  to  quotf , 
show,  that  what  he  said  of  the  sentiments  of  Bro. 
Campbell,  is  a  slander  upon  that  great  and  good  mar.. 
If  yir.  Terrell  is  either  a  gentleman  or  a  Christian,  he 
certainly  will,  when  convinced  of  his  wrong,  take  back 
what  he  has  said.  If  he  does  not,  this  community  will 
know  what  estimate  to  put  upon  his  statements  here- 
after. 

I  will  now  call  your  attentions  to  the  phrase,  "  //r 
_/af///,"  as  it  is  used  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  •'•  The  faith"' 
does  not  always  mean  the  simple  belief  of  mankmd 
but  we  find  included  in  the  phrase,  Christianity  in  all 
its  parts  For  example,  we  are  said  to  '' obci/  the 
faith."  Kom.  1:  5,  and  IG:  26.  We  are  said  to  '- hear 
the  faith."  Gal.  3:  2,  5.  Now,  to  obey  the  faith,  is  to 
obey  the  gospel,  and  to  hear  the  faith,  is  to  hear  the 
gospel.  We  are  commanded  to  "  contend  ea,rnestiy 
for  the  faith  which  was  once  delivered  to  the  Saints.'* 
Jude,  3.  Now,  who  does  not  see,  that,  to  contend  for 
the  faith,  is  to  contend  for  Christianity  in  all  its  parts, 
the  facts,  commandments,  and  promises  ?  Paul  is  said 
to  ^-preach  th'  faith  which  he  once  destroyed."  Gal.  1; 
23.  Paul,  in  preaching  the  fnith,  preached  Christ,  and 
him  crucified.  1  Cor.  2,  3.  lie  preached  that  the  peo- 
ple should  "  repent,  and  turn  to  God,  and  do  works 
meet  for  repentance."  Acts,  2G:  20.  So  "the  faith^' 
which  Paul  preached  was  Christ,  and  obedience  to 
Christ.  From  these  passages  we  learn,  that,  when  we 
are  said  to  be  saved  or  justified  through  the  faith,  it  is 
not  by  simple  belief,  as  Mr.  Terrell  thinks,  but  by  the 
Gospel,  without  the  law  of  Moses.  I  next  call  your  at- 
tentions to  the  phrase  "  by  faith:'  Mr.  Terrell  has 
reasoned  all  day,  as  if  he  thought  the  phrase  by  faith, 
excluded  all   action,  all  obedience  from  our  justifica- 


'214  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

tion.  Let  us  see  it  it  means  faith  alone,  or  ftiitli  by  it- 
self. "By  faith  Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  excel- 
lent sacrifice  than  Cain."  Heb.  11:4.  Did  he  olier  the 
sacrifice  by  faith  alone,  witliout  any  action  ?  or  was  it 
by  faith  carried  out  into  practice,  as  the  Lord  com- 
manded? 

'•  By  faith  Noah,  being  warned  by  God,  moved  with 
fear,  prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving  of  his  house." 
Heb.  11:7.  Did  faith  alone  prepare  an  ark  to  the 
saving  of  his  house?  Did  faith  do  all,  and  Noah  no- 
thing to  the  ark?  It  was  not  by  faith  alone,  but  by 
faith  in  what  God  said,  and  obedience  to  what  ho 
commanded,  that  the  ark  was  prepared.  Moses  says  : 
"  Thus  did  Noah,  as  the  Lord  commanded  him."  The 
ark  was  prepared,  not  by  faith  alone,  but  by  the  art^ 
of  faith  ;  so  we  are  not  justified  by  faith  alone,  but  by 
confidence  in  the  Lord,  andiSubmission  to  his  authori- 
ty— by  the  acls  of  faith.  Read  all  of  the  11th  chapter 
of  Hebrews,  and  first  try  by  faith  alone,  and  then  try 
by  faith  canled  out  inlo  practice^  and  you  can  soon  see 
vv'hich  agrees  with  common  sense.  I  have  yet  one 
chapter  on  faifh  alone  that  I  have  reserved  for  a  treat 
to  Mr.  Terrell.  I  mean  the  second  chapter  of  James. 
James  disposes  of  all  the  advocates  of  faith  alone,  and 
shows  them  to  be  vain  men.  and  perverters  of  the 
v^^ord  of  God.  He  says  :  "  What  doth  it  profit,  my 
))rethren,  though  a  man  say  he  has  faith,  and  have  not 
works?  Can.  faith  save  him  ?'^  Yes,  indeed,  says  Mr. 
Terrell,  it  can  savohim;  for  we  are  justified  by  laitii 
alone.  The  Apostle  asks  again  :  "  If  a  brother  or  a 
sister  1)0  naked,  and  destitute  of  daily  food,  and  one  of 
you  say  unto  them.  Depart  in  peace,  be  warmed  and 
tilled,  but  refuse  to  give  them  the  things  that  are  heed- 
!'ul  to  the  body,  what  doth  it  profit?"'  What  profit  is  it 
to  a  poor  man  who  comes  to  you  for  food  and  clothes, 
to  say  to  him,  go  in  peace,  J  will  not  give  you  the 
things  that  are  needful  to  the  body?  We  ail  know 
that  it  would   profit  him  nothing   at  all.      "  Even  so 


AXD  THE  HOLY  SPIRiT.  "215 

ju'dh^^  says  James.  But  even  with  what  ?  Why  tve:i 
with  saying  to  a  poor  brother,  depart  in  peace,  1  will 
not  give  you  any  thing.  "  Even  so  faith,  if  it  hath  not 
worlds,  is  dead,  being  alone."  Here  is  the  faith  of  Mr. 
Terrell — the  faith  about  which  he  has  been  talking  all 
day,  and  it  is  just  (vm  with  saying  to  a  poor  man,  de- 
part in  peace,  1  will  not  give  yoa  any  thing  that  is 
"  needful  to  the  body." 

In  debating  with  just  such  an  opponent  as  I  have 
to-day,  James  said  to  him  :  *^  Thou  believest  that  there 
js  one  Gfod  ;  thou  doest  well  :  the  dcuih;  also  believe, 
and  tremble."      Here  we  »ee,  that  the  devils  in  heil 
have  every  thing  that  Mr-  Terrell  ssiys  i-s  essential  to 
being  a  Methodist.  If  faith  alone  makes  a  man  a  Meth- 
odist, why  may  not  it  make  the  devils  Methodists  also? 
If  his  faith  aloiae  is  the  truth  of  Clod,  the  devils  aro 
good  sound  orlkodox  Methodists  now  ;  for  they  have 
done  all  that  is  essential  to  Methodism,  to  make  men 
Methodists.      v\  ell  might  James  have  said  to  his  iaith 
alone  friend,  "  Vv'iit  thou  know,  O  valv  man,  that  faith 
wjithout  works  is  dead.''       lie  calls  the  advocate    o." 
faith  aione,  a  vahi  iwin;  and  a  vain  man  he  must  be,  to 
make  the  creatures  of  God  do  nothing  more  to  become 
Christians,  than  the  devils  in  hell  have  done.     I  have 
only  time  to  mention  one  point  more.     The  Discipline 
of"  (YVir  ch.urcli'''  says  :     "  Wherefore,  that  we  are  j.usti- 
lied  by  faith  only^  is  a  moat  loJiaksofne  doctrine,  and  very 
full  of  conLfprt."     James  says.:    '-You  see  then   how- 
that  by  works  a  man  is  jus  titled,  and  not  h//  fatirtotiLY^K 
The  Discipline  says,  we  are  justified  by  faith  oiui/ ;es.iid 
James  «ays,  we  are  not  justilied  by  faltk  only.'    Whiciii 
•^hall  we  believe,  the  Spirit  of  God,  or  the  Methodist. 
ereed?     I  will  conclude  in  the  language  of  James:— 
-■-•For  as  .the  body  without  the  spirit  is  dead,  so  fai;h' 
without  works  is  dead  also."     Faith  without  works'is-; 
like  a,  body  without  a  spirit ;  and  of  no  more  uss.     I 
tb.at.nk  you  all  for  your  attention. 

Time  expired. 


-itJ  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

MR.  Terrell's  closing  speech — 3d  p?.op. 
Christian  Friends:  ' 

Tiie  gentleman's  beautiful  manner  and  boisterou.';^- 
ness  reminded  me  of  what  an  old  Latin  author  once 
said  to  a  young  man  whom  he  wished  to  rebuke  for  his 
rudeness.  The  old  man  exclaimed:  "My  young  man. 
if  you,  being  a  muhy,  bellow  and  take  on  so,  what 
would  you  do  if  you    had  horns?"     [A  laugh.] 

President  moderator  called  the  congregation  to  ordei 
and  Mr.  Terrell  proceeded. 

The  Liturgy  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  in  ev- 
ery essential  the  same  as  that  in  the  17th  century.  The 
iitiii'gy  of  baptism  or  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  the 
same.  What  can  the  gentleman  make  of  the  fact  that 
we  hold  some  points  in  common  with  Roman  Catholics*:^ 
His  own  church  does  the  same,  and  so  does  every  other- 
church  in  Christendom.  He  has  done  nothing  here 
then,  only  to  show  how  he  could  read  from  tv/o  books, 
first  one  and  then  the  other. 

He  says  that  1  have  misrepresented  Mr,  Campbell's 
views  and  he  read  from  Mr.  Campbell's  works  the  same 
thing  that  1  spoke  of.  1  would  not  have  alluded  to  the 
quotation,  had  it  not  been  called  out  of  me,  by  the  gen- 
tleman's doing  great  injustice  to  the  writings  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  by  garbling  bis  works  and  misrepresenting  hi.'s 
views. 

[Here  the  president  moderator  called  Mr.  Terrell  to 
order^  alledging  that  he  was  not  speaking  to  the  point- 
Mr.  Terrell  proceeded.] 

To  wash  away  sins  is  a  figurative  expression.  This- 
is  clear  from  the  language  of  the  apostle  which  reads 
as  follows:  "But  ye  are  washed  but  ye  are  sanctified, 
but  ye  are  justified,"  &:c.  This  does  not  mean  that 
\)aptism  can  or  does  wash  away  sins;  but  it  is  a  figur- 
ative allusion  to  tlieir  cleansing  with  the  blood  of  Christ 
All  know  this  who  have  ever  made  theology  their  stu- 
<!y. 

The  gentleman  quotes  the  w'ords,  "If  I  had  all  faitL 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  217 

SO  that  I  could  remove  mountains,  and  had  not  charity, 
it  would  profit  me  nothing,"  and  the  words  of  James, 
''What  doth  it  profit  a  man  if  he  have  faith  and  have 
not  works;''  but  the  apostles  are  showing  in  both  these 
passages  that  good  works  are  the  fruits  of  faith,  and  en- 
joining the  necessity  of  them  as  such. 

But  he  says,  as  the  devils  have  faith  they  are  good 
orthodox  Methodists.  Well,  so  far  as  they  go,  they  are 
orthodox.  1  once  heard  of  a  Methodist  that  became 
somewhat  excited,  and  his  heart  began  to  burn  within 
him  for  the  salvation  of  the  world,  and  he  tried  to  get 
the  devil,  with  all  the  world  into  the  Methodist  church. 
With  devils  iaith  is  the  mere  assent  of  the  mind.  With 
Methodists,  iaith  is  the  relying  upon  the  word  of  the 
Lord  with  all  the  soul!  This  brings  salvation  to  the 
sinner. 

With  regard  to  my  letter  to  Mr.  Pritchard;  he  says, 
that  1  stated  in  it,  that  "baptism  is  the  induction  into 
the  church."  1  stated  then,  as  I  state  now,  that  it  is 
the  induction  into  the  visible  cliiirck.  1  have  had  a  cor- 
respondence with  several  men  in  Mr.  Pritchard's church 
in  my  life,  and  they  all  have  endeavored,  and  tried  hard, 
to  get  me  to  say  and  affirm,  that  "faith  alone  is  a  whole- 
some doctrine  and  full  of  comfort.'"  I  always  offer  to 
contend  for  faith  and  baptism  as  taught  in  the  Disci- 
pline. 

I  have  given  a  passing  notice  of  his  scripture  pi'oots, 
but  many  of  the  passages  that  he  has  quoted  are  irrel- 
ivant,  and  therefore  J  give  them  no  notice.  I  shall  now 
pass  on  to  recapitulate  my  arguments, 
ist.  I  objected  to  the  gentleman's  proposition  because 
it  contradicts  Jesus  Christ,  as  shown  by  referring  to  the 
serpent  in  the  wilderness  in  connexion  with  the  language 
of  the  Savior.  The  Savior's  language  reads  as  follows: 
'As  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  so 
shall  the  son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever  be- 
lieveth  on  him  should  not  perish  qut  have  eternal  life.'' 
Here  it  was  shown,  that  faith  is  the  condition  and  the- 


SI 8  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

only  condition.  It  does  not  say,  that  whosoever  belie- 
veth  on  him  and  ishapthcd  shall  have  eternal  life,  but 
whosoever  beUevetk  on  him  shall  have  eternal  life.'' — 
Again,  it  is  said,  "He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath 
everlasting  life."  He  that  believeth  not  the  Son,  shail 
not  see  life,  bat  the  wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him,  nut 
he  that  believeth  is  not  condemned,  but  is  passed  from 
death  unto  life. 

2d.  My  second  argument  is  built  upon  the  belief  of 
ail  Protestant  Christendom — all  evangelical  churches, 
who  believe  that  pardon  is  obtained  by  faith  in  the 
meritorious  blood  of  our  Savior.  This  position  Ihave 
sustained  by  the  bible,  by  many  clear  and  unanswera- 
ble scriptures,  against  which  Mr.  Pritchard  has  lict 
been  able  to  defend  his  cause. 

3d.  My  third  objection  is,  that  his  doctrine  is  in  di- 
rect contradiction  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformation 
in  the  IGth  century.  That  Reformation  was  based  on 
faith  as  the  great  ordinance  requisite  to  pardon.  It 
was  this  that  Luther  contended  for;  and  this  wavS  the 
germ,  the  life  of  that  Reformation.  To  this  blessed  doc- 
trine we  are  indebted  for  the  great  Protestant  princi- 
ples of  the  present  day.  The  doctrine  of  the  ninth  ar- 
ticle of  our  book  of  Discipline  is  the  same.  Mr. 
Pritchard  has  found  it  greatly  in  his  way  in  this  debate 
but  it  cannot  be  moved.     It  will  stand  forever. 

4th.  My  fourth  argument  is  founded  upon  the  fact, 
that  my  opponent's  doctrine  defers  God's  time,  and 
makes  the  salvation  of  souls  depend  on  an  ordinance 
that  cannot  be  administered  in  thousands  of  instances 
till  some  future  time,  and  in  some  instances  not  at  all. 
According  to  Mr.  Pritchard's  theory,  there  is  no  pardon 
where  there  is  not  water  enough  to  immerse.  This  1 
have  shown  to  be  unreasonable  and  unscriptural. — 
While  the  scripture  says  now  is  the  accepted  time,  Mf. 
Pritchard"s  doctrine  says,  you  must  wait  till  you  can 
find  an  administrator  of  baptism  and  water  to  immerse. 
While  the  scripture  says,   whosoever    will  may    come, 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  219 

ills  doctrine  says,  the  sick  and  afflicted  cannot  come  at 
all.  This  difliculy  he  has  never  got  over  and  never 
can. 

5th.  j\ry  5th  argument  is  based  upon  the  fact,  that  it' 
Mr.  Pritchard's  doctrine  be  true,  it  makes  man's  salva- 
tion depend  not  upon  an  individual  and  his  God,  but 
entirely  upon  a  disinterested  third  person;  for  a  third 
person  must  be  found  to  administer  baptism,  and  if  no 
one  can  be  found  willing  or  competent,  the  person  must 
be  lost.  X^od  never  intended  this.  He  never  intended 
the  salvation  of  one  man  to  depend  upon  another. 

Gth.  jMy  sixth  argument  is  founded  on  the  fact,  that 
according  to  Mr.  P.\s  own  doctrine,  there  will  be  many 
that  never  can  be  saved;  for  we  all  know  that  thousands 
are  situated  so  that  they  never  can  be  immersed.  I  have 
specified  many  cases  of  this  kind  to  v/hich  he  has  paid 
no  attention,  and  to  which  he  never  can  reply.  Think 
of  it,  my  christian  friends,  how  would  you  feel  to  see 
some  of  your  friends  desirous  to  be  saved,  and  no  person 
could  be  found  who  could  and  would  immerse.  But 
according  to  my  doctrine,  the  man  upon  the  sick  bed, 
with  his  back  broken,  or  lying  in  the  dungeon,  can  "be- 
lieve on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  and  be  saved.  If  the 
sinner  is  in  the  vast  wildernfess  a  thousand  miles  from 
water  or  the  administrator  of  baptism,  he  can  believe 
on  the  »Son  of  God  and  be  saved.  It  matters  not  what 
the  condition  of  the  man  is,  for  he  can  believe  in  any 
condition  and  he  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God  is 
passed  from  death  unto  life. 

The  gentleman  appeared  quite  uneasy.  He,  no  doubt 
felt  goaded  at  what  1  had  said;  but  I  speak  unto  wise 
men;  judge  ye  what  I  say. 

1  have  now  gone  through  with  the  argument,  and 
set  it  before  you  in  as  clear  a  manner  as  1  could  and 
you  mustjudge  of  its  merits,  i  have  sustained  every 
position  1  have  taken  from  incontrovertible  evidence 
from,  the  bible.  Mr.  Pritchard  has  signally  failed  on 
every  point,  and  he  ever  must  fail  so  long  as  he  attempts 


220  DEBATE  ON  BAPTIto'M 

to  prove  baptism  for  remission  of  siny.  Ho  lias  tried 
every  method  any  one  could  think  of  to  make  a  show 
of  argument,  but  he  has  failed  in  every  attempt.  He 
has  appealed  to  our  standard  works,  and,  by  misrepre- 
sentation, has  attempted  to  make  this  audience  believe 
that  Mr.  Wesley  believed  in  baptism  for  remission  oi' 
sins;  but  Mr.  V/esley  when  fairly  understood,  believed 
no  such  doctrine,  and  if  he  did  we  do  not  believe  every 
thing  he  vvrrote.  In  the  main  his  works  are  good,  and 
on  this  account  our  conference  orders  them  published, 
and  not  because  she  sactions  every  sentiment  he  wrote. 

He  has  gone  to  our  book  of  Discipline  and  attempted 
to  show  that  it  teaches  his  doctrine  but  here  he  has 
failed. 

He  has  gone  to  the  scriptures  and  endeavored  to  prove 
his  doctrine  from  the  bible,  but  here  we  found  faith  to 
be  the  condition  of  j  ustification.  '-All  the  prophets 
bear  him  witness  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall 
receive  remission  of  sins."  ''He  that  believeth  on  the 
son  hath  everlasting  life."  Thus  you  see,  that  faith  is 
the  great  condition.  This  was  the  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
formation of  the  sixteenth  century  and  it  is  the  doctrine 
of  our  church. 

If    1  had  time  I  would  advance  more  proof  but    my 
time  is  almost  out,  and  I  must  come  to  a  close. 
Time  expired. 


A\D  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  221 

[mR.  TERRELL'S  OPENING  SPEECH 4:TH  PROP.] 

The  president  moderator  read  the  proposition  asfol- 
■.ows: 

The  Holy  Spirit  bears  an  immediate  direct  and  per- 
sonal testimony  to  the  heart  of  the  behever. 
Gentlemen  Moderators — 

Having  established  to  all  unbiased  minds,  on  yester- 
day, that  faith  is  the  great  principle  through  which 
men  are  justified  I  now  proceed  to  another  proposition 
which  brings  me  to  the  evidence  of  the  pardon  of  all 
::>ast  sins.  This  is  a  great  proposition  and  while  I  look 
o  the  Giver  of  all  wisdom  for  his  blessing,  I  hope  I 
;hall  have  an  interest  in  your  prayers,  that  I  may  be 
led  fruitfully  into  a!l  truth.  If  I  am  v/rong  this  morn- 
ing, the  great  body  of  protestants  are  wrong  with  me, 
and  we  are  all  left  vv'ithout  any  evidence  of  the  pardon 
of  sins! 

Wit'hont  further  preliminary,  I  will  proceed  to  read 
my  proposition.     It  reads  as  follows: 

The  Holy  Spirit  bears  an  immediate,  direct  and  per- 
sonal testimouy  to  the  heart  of  the  beJiever. 

The  term  "immediate  testimony,"  means  at  the  time> 
clear,  plain  and  direct.  ''Personal''  means  without  an 
agent,  wot  by  represententative,  or  not  by  another. — 
/-ardon;  what  is  it?  I  cannot  give  abetter  definition 
than  the  one  given  by  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  debate  with 
Mr.  Rice.  He  says  st  is  not  a  process,  but  a  single  act 
of  God's  free  grace-^that  i*t  is  an  act  of  the  great  Sov- 
reign,  and  takes  place  in  heaveii.  it  is  an  act  of  the 
;nfinite  mind,  Qommonly  called  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 
It  is  not  done  in  man,  but  it  is  done  in  heaven  for  him. 
]t  is  tlie  act  of  God  and  can  come  from  no  other  source 
but  God. 

The  evidence  cannot  exist  before  the  fact— it  can- 
not be  prior  to  the  fact.  This  is  a  self-evident  state- 
ment, to  all  who  have  ever  thought  on  the  subject. 
The  evidence  cannot  reach  back  one  moment  prior  to 
the  time  of  the  pardon  of  sins.     From  this  fact,  I  argue 


222  DEBATE  ON   BAFTrsW 

that  the  evidence  of  any  man's  pardon  that  now  lives^ 
cannot  be  in  the  bibl'^.  As  the  act  of  pardon  takes 
place  in  heaven  and  is  an  act  of  God,  the  evidence 
must  come  from  God,  and  could  not,  in  the  very  na- 
ture of  things,  come  before  the  act  \vas  performed,  or 
else  the  evidence  testifies  to  what  is  not  done. 

You  now  see  the  awkward  position  of  my  friend, 
Mr.  Pritchard.  He  believes  the  evidence  of  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  is  in  the  bible,  and  consequently  he 
makes  the  bible  bear  witness  to  the  pardon  of  a  man's 
sins  before  they  are  pardoned,  and  consequently  makes 
the  bible  bear  testimony  to  what  is  not  true.  The  evi- 
dence of  pardon  cannot  be  in  the  bible,  for  this  would 
be  the  same  as  to  say  that  the  evidence  existed  before 
the  fact  existed,  which  you  see  cannot  be. 

Here  I  plant  my  stakes,  and  from  here  I  cannot  be 
moved.  My  first  step  is  to  show  the  gentleman  that 
he  cannot  find  the  evidence  in  the  bible.  He  may  try 
it,  but  he  will  fail  in  every  attempt  he  makes,  for  he 
cannot  find  where  the  evidence  of  any  fact  existed  be- 
fore the  fact  existed. 

But  again  :  As  pardon  takes  pl^ce  in  heaven,  no  act 
that  we  can  do  can  possibly  prove  it.  Pardon  is  an 
act  of  the  Great  Sovereign,  and  consequently  the  evi- 
dence must  come  from  him,  which  shows  beyond  the 
possibility  of  a  doubt,  that  no  act  that  we  can  do  can 
be  an  evidence  of  our  pardon. 

I  may  have  occasion  to  refer  to  this  argumnnt  again, 
and  in  order  to  prepare  the  way,  I  wiH  just  {»!)sprve 
that  the  bible  was  written  more  than  eighteen  hun- 
dred years  ago,  and  consequently  must  have  contained 
the  evidence  of  my  pardon  eighteen  hundred  years 
ago,  or  that  long  before  it  was  true  that  1  was  par- 
doned. 

The   gentleman  may  say  we  have  the  promise  of' 
pardon  in  the  bible;  but  the  promise  of  pardon  and 
the  evidence  are  very  different  things.      A  man  may 
promise  me  money,  but  th^t  is  no  evidence  that  he  ha.? 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRrT.  223 

paid  it  to  me.  A  man  that  is  considered  good  may 
promise  to  pay  money,  and  never  do  it.  The  promise 
in  that  case  is  no  evidence  ;  and  even  if  he  did  pay  me 
as  he  promised,  liis  promise  is  no  evidence  to  me  that 
be  has  paid  me.  As  pardon  is  an  act  that  takes  place 
in  heaven,  no  act  on  earth  can  prove  it.  The  evidence 
must  come  from  where  the  act  takes  place. 

My  anxiety  and  striving  may  evince  to  my  feilow- 
man  that  I  am  desirous  of  pardon,  but  this  is  no  evi- 
dence to  others  that  I  am  pardoned,  or  to  myself.  Oth- 
ers cannot  give  the  evidence  that  I  am  pardoned,  nor 
need   any  one  look  to  any  source  for  the  evidence  of 
pardon  but  to  God ;  for  pardon  is  his  act  done  in  hea- 
ven, and  the  evidence  must  come  from  him.     You  see 
where  this  leaves  Mr.  Pritchard,  and  his  brethren! — 
From  these  conclusions,  he  will  find,  there  is  no  escape. 
A  feeling  child  may  weep  in  consequence  of  having 
transgressed  the  laws  of  a  good  parent ;  but  its  tears 
arc  no  evidence  of  its  pardon.     We  learn  not  from 
the  child  that  it  was  pardoned  ;  but  the  evidence  of  its 
pardon  must  come  from  the  parent.     The  child  itself 
learns  not  from  any  of  its  own  acts  that  it  is  pardoned; 
but  the  child  must  learn  it  from  the  parent,  for,  in  this 
case,  the  parent  is  the  pardoning  power.     The  parent 
is  the  judge  when  the  child  should  be  pardoned  ;  so  is 
God,  not  we,  when  we  should  be  pardoned.     Neither 
can  our  fellow  man  assure  us  of  pardon,  for  it  is  beyond 
the  reach  of  our  senses,  and  we  must  depend  on  the 
testimony. 

The  question  now  comes  up  with  all  it  force  :  Who 
is  the  witness  ?  Man  is  not  the  witness  in  this  case,  for 
pardon  is  one  of  the  things  of  God,  which  man  does  not 
know.  The  bible  is  not  the  witness,  for  its  evidence  is 
older  than  ihe  fact,  which  we  have  seen  could  not  be 
the  case.  St.  Paul  says,  "the  natural  man  receiveth 
not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  neither  indeed  can 
he  know  them,  for  they  are  spiritually  discerned." — 
Again,  he  says,  "  What  man  knows  the  miiid  of  a  man 


224  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

save  tlie  spirit  of  a  man  that  is  in  him  ?"  and  the  argu- 
ment of  the  apostle  proceeds,  as  if  he  had  said.  No 
jnan  can  know  the  mind  of  God  but  the  Spirit  of  God 
that  is  in  him. 

Pardon  is  one  of  the  deep  things  of  God,  and  no  man 
knows  it  but  by  the  Spirit,  which  searcheth  all  things, 
yea  the  deep  things  of  God.  Such  is  the  state  of  the 
case,  and  my  friend  can  never  get  over  it.  I  cannot 
see  how  he  will  attempt  it ! 

There  is  no  being  in  heaven  or  in  hell  that  knows  the 
act  of  the  mind  ot'God  but  the  Spirit  of  God  that  is  in 
kirn,  and,  of  course  no  being  but  the  Spirit  can  reveal 
lo  man  the  pardoning  act  of  the  mind  of  God.  This  is 
out  of  the  question.     The  matter  then  stands  thus  : 

1.  If  God  pardoned  man  he  knows  it.  This  all 
will  agree  to. 

2.  If  God  knows  that  a  man  is  pardoned  he  can  let 
us  know  it.     This  will  not  be  disputed. 

.3.  He  is  good  enough  to  let  us  know  it. 
To  all  this  no  one  can  demur.  Well,  then,  has  God 
given  us  the  assurance  that  he  will  give  us  the  witness 
of  the  Spirit.  I  say  he  has,  and  if  you  ask  mc  for  the 
proof  here  it  is  :  "  And  because  ye  are  sons,  God  hath 
sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,  crying- 
Abba,  Father."  Gal.  4:  6.  ^ 

When  a  man  is  pardoned  he  is  a  son,  and  here  is  di- 
lect  testimony,  that  God  sends  forth  the  spirit  of  his- 
8on  into  the  hearts  of  such.  This  is  evidence  to  the 
point.  But  let  me  read  again;  "For  ye  have  not  received 
the  spirit  of  bondage  again  to  fear;  but  ye  have 
received  the  spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba, 
Father,  the  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit, 
that  we  are  the  children  of  God."  Ro.  8:  15,  16.  This? 
is  proof  clear  enough  for  any  one  who  believes  the  bi- 
ble, but  it  is  stated  that  the  spirit  bearteth  witness. 
1  John.  5:  8.  This  witness  is  so  important  that  he  say^ 
in  a  previous  chapter,  that  if  any  man  have  not  the 
spirit  of  Christ  he  is  none  of  his.  You  can  nowsee^.  mj 


AST)  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  225 

Christian  friends,  what  is  to  become  of  Mr.  I'ritchard's 
theory.  It  cannot  stand  the  test  in  the  light  of  the  scrip- 
ture. 

I  will  now  quote  another  passage,  which  reads  as 
tbllows:  "In  whom  ye  also  trusted,  after  that  ye  heard 
the  word  of  truth  the  gospel  of  your  salvation:  in  whom 
also,  after  that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  that 
Holy  Spirit  of  promise."  Kph.  1:  13.  This  is  the 
pledge  of  our  pardon,  "the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise." — 
This,  blessed  be  God,  is  the  evidence  of  pardon.  The 
world  can  neither  give  or  take  avv^ay  this  assurance 
which  the  Christian  feels  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

Again,  the  Apostle  says;  "Now  he  that  hath  wrought 
lis  for  the  self  same  thing  is  God,  who  also  hath  given 
unto  us  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit."  2.  Cor.  5:  5  Here 
is  evidence  as  good  as  any  one  could  desire.  How  will 
the  gentleman  get  over  this?  Mere  he  speaks  of  the 
earnest  of  the  Spirit,  which  he  Las  given  us. 

But  I  must  proceed  to  bring  my  proof:  "Nov/  we  have 
not  received  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  Spirit  which 
is  of  God:  that  \ye  might  know  the  things  that  are 
freely  given  to  us  of  God."  1  Cor.  2:  12.  What  plai- 
ner evidence  could  any  one  produce  on  any  proposi- 
tion than  this?  The  apostle  says,  he  has  given  us  ihe 
Holy  Spirit  that  ?^''?  ??2f^'/i^ /:.',oi/j  the  things  given  us  of 
God.  That  is  the  same  as  if  he  had  said,  that  we  might 
know  that  he  has  granted  the  pardon  of  our  sins. 
Having  the  blessed  assurance  of  his  Sprit  that  we  have 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  acceptance  v.dth  God  "  we 
are  always  confident,"  as  the  apostle  sa3^s,and  fear  nor, 
what  man  can  do.  This  is  the  confidence  that  lillsth!^ 
heart  \Vith  joy, — the  assurance  that  the  world*  can  nei- 
ther give  or  take  away.  Blessed  be  God,  brethren,  you 
know  when  you  felt  this  confidence!  You  who  have 
this  assurance  know  what  it  is  worth;  but  those  who 
never  had  it  know  not  how  to  appreciate  it.  He  who 
has  felt  the  kindling  flame  of  the  love  of  God  knows 
its  value'  but  these  destitute  of  this  heavenlv  assurance 

O 


2*iS  32B.^TE-  ON  B AP'HSM- 

directly  from  God  know  not  the  comfort  it  iinpartL*, 

But  the  question  arises,  is  this  blessed  witness  of  ths?- 
Spirit  of  God  imm'tdiatc?  It  mo^t  undoutediy  is,  for  "the 
ISp'i'i  ititsdf  beare  h  wilne.-s  with  our  spirits  that  we  are 
tiie  children  of  God."  Surely  it  is  immediate,  andjo.  r- 
.wnaJAoY  it  is  the  s|)ri-rit  that  bears  witness  and  no  one 
el:-*^  This  is  tht^n  the  iimiiediate  and  personal  witness 
of  ^he  Spirit  with  our  spirit  that  we  are  the  children 
of  God.'  "Because  you  ar-e  sons  he  hath  sent  forth  the 
spiiltof  his  Son  into  your  hearts  crying.  Abba,  Fath- 
tr." 

!  bp.ve  now  clearly  set  my  argument  before  you 
frcra  the  word  of  Giod,  and  if  I  liad  time,  1  could  say 
much  more  o-i>  the  points  introduced;  but  1  shall  have 
time  to  fill  up  my  arguments  and  elaborate  hereafier. 
And  I  shall  also  produce  more  arguments,  which  Mr, 
Pritchard  will  never  be  able  to  answer 
Time  expired. 

MR.  BEITCHARD's  FIR&T    REPLY— ItU  PROF, 

Lventlemen  Moderators: 

I'his  is  the  last  day  of  our  discussion,  and  as  Mr. 
Terrell  has  thought  it  best,  from-  some  cause  unknown 
to  me,  for  him  to  occupy  but  tlivec  hours  to-day  in  the 
discussion  of  thisproposition,  we  will  have  to  advance 
into  the  me.'^its  of  the  question  at  onxe.  There  are 
some  things  in  the  speech  of  Mr.  Terrell  this  morning, 
:  which  are  to  me  exceedingly  mysterious,  and  which 
I  cannot  understand.  He  speaks  as  ii^  he  did  noi  un- 
derstand the  issue  which  he  has  mado  himself.  In- 
stead of  proving,  as  he  is  solemnly  bound  by  his  pro- 
position to  do,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  makes  si.  new,  a 
din ct  and  immj^diati:  revelation  distinct  from  the  bibh-y 
he  has  been  proving,  what  no  one  who  believes  the 
Gospel  denies, — viz — that  the  children  of  God  rr,ceivc 
the  Spirit.  That  the  audience  may  see  what  the  issue 
is,  and  that  Mr.  Terrell  has  not  been  debating  the  is- 
sue, 1  wish  to  know  of  him,  if  the  real  issue  between 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  227 

IL>  is,  that  Methodists  believe  that  Christians  receive 
the  Spirit,  and  we  deny  it  ?.  (Turning  to  Mr.  T.,  Mr. 
P.  said)  Do  you,  sir,  know  that  we,  as  a  community, 
deny  the  truth  of  what  Paul  says,  that,  "  B6causo  ye 
are  sons,  God  has  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into 
your  hearts''?  or,  that  we  are  sealed  by  the  Spirit,  af- 
ter we  believe  ? 

(Mr.  Terrell — I  will  answer  you  sir,  wiien  I  speak 
again.) 

Mr.  Pritchard — As  i  wish  this  point  settled  now,  I 
wish  an  ansv/er  wnn. 

(Mr.  Terrell — Repeat  your  q,uestion,  sir.) 

Mr.  Pritchard — Do  you  know,  that  we,  as  a  commu- 
nity, deny  the  truth  of  w4iat  Paul  says,  that,  "  Because 
ye  are  sons,  God  has  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son 
into  your  hearts'?  or,  that  Christians  are  sealed  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  promise  ? 

(Mr.  Terrell — I  don't  know  that  you  do,  I  never  heard 
you  do  it.) 

Mr.  Pritchard — Tne  gentleman  know's  very  well  w^^ 
do  not,  and  he  dare  not  say  that  we  do.  What  then. 
I  ask,  had  his  speech  this  morning  to  do  whith  the  pro- 
position, more  than  it  had  with  a.ny  other  subject  o-' 
which  a  man  might  think ''^  He  has  been  labeling  to 
prove  a  proposition  as  wide  as  the  breadths  of  heaven 
from  the  subject  before  us.  That  Christians  receive 
the  Spirit,  I  believe,  as  firmly  as  any  man  now  living  ; 
but, that  it  brings  a  new  revelation  right  from  heaven 
to  every  believer,  and  that  too,  without  any  medium,  I 
do  not  believe. 

But  I  have  another  question  for  Mr.  Terrell  to  ans- 
wer. Is  it  not  the  faith  of  your  party,  and  do  not  you 
believe  that  the  Spirit  of  God  operaies  either  with  or 
without  faith,  and  that  God  sends  tiie  Spirit  of  his  Sort 
into  the  heart  of  an  infidd  to  make  him  a  son  of  God  ? 

(Mr.  Terrell  said — \¥e  believe  tha.t,  sir  ;  that  is  the 
faith  of  the  Methodist  church.) 

Mr.  Pritchard — That  will   do  sir.     Nov/,  that   Mr. 


228  DEBATE  ON  BAFTiSM 

Terrell  and  his  party  do  not  believe  one  of  his  proof 
^exts,  I  am  prepared  to  prove  by  him..  He  admits 
that  we  believe  that,  "  because  yen  are  sons,  God  has 
sent  forth  his  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  yoUr  liearts."  Yes, 
because  you  are  sons,  and  not  to  make  you  sons,  he  says 
we  believe.  But,  how  is  it  with  him  ?  Why  he  and 
his  brethren  believe,  he  says,  that  it  is  not  "  because  ynu. 
-ire  sons,''''  as  Paul  says,  and  as  we  believe,  but  to  7nakc 
Irifidels  the  sons  of  God,  that  God  sends  forth  his  Spirit, 
Yes,  God  sends  the  naked  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  the 
^leart  of  an  infidel  lo^make  him  the  Son  of  God.-  Now, 
•  f  he  believesthat  the  Spirit  God  is  sent  into  the  heart 
)f  a  man  to  make  him  a  son  of  God,  !ie  does  not  believe 
ihat  it  is  sent'into  his  heart  because  he  is  a  son ;  and  if  he 
relieves  that  it  i^  ••  because  you  are  sons,"  that  the 
Spirit  is  sent  forth,  as  he  says,  we  believe,  he  does  not 
')elieve  the  faith  of  his  party,  that  it  is  to  inake  you  sons. 
He  must  say  that  the  bible  is  right,  and  consequently 
hat  w^e  are  right,  and  Methodism  wrong,  or  that  he 
■.\\^  his  party  are  right,  and  the  bible  wrong.  He 
•an. not  believe  the  creed  of  his  party  and  the  bible 
')Oth  right, -for  they  flatly  contradict  each  other. 

But  how  is'it  with  the  llrst  chapter  of  Ephesians  / 
Does  he  believe  that  we  are  sealed  with  the  Hely 
Spirit?  Did  he  not  affirm,  while  debating  the  ques- 
:ion  of  infant  baptism,  that  v/e  are  ''sealed  by  ivater 
baptism"?  Did  I  not  then  quote  this  very  passage  to 
prove  that  his  Methodism  w^as  wrong  ?  Did  I  not  then 
tell  j*ou  to  remember  this,  for  I  would  have  use  for  it 
on  the  last  proposition  ?  Now,  if  Mr.  Terrell  believes, 
what  he  solemnly  affirmed  then  he  did  believe,  viz  ; 
that  we  are  sealed  by  baptism.,  he  does  not  believe 
that  we  are  "sealed  \Vith  tiieHoly  Spirit  of  promise," 
as  Paul  teaches  in  Ephesians,  1:  13.  If  he  believes 
that  we  are  sealed  with  baptism,  aS  he  told  us  he  did, 
he  does  not  believe,  as  he  says  we  do,  that  we  are 
sealed  with  the  Spirit;  and  if  he  believes  that  we  are 
sealed  with  the  Spirit,  ho  does  not.  and  cannot  believe 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  2*2^^ 

that  we  are  sealed  with  baptism.  He  can  give  up 
what  he  said  o.ii  infant  baptism,  and  confess  the  bible 
true,  or  he  can  deny  that  the  bible  is  true,  and  hold  on 
to  his  baptism  seal.     Which  will  he  do  ? 

Having  shown  that  Mr.  Terrell  does  not  and  can- 
not, while  he  remains  a  Methodist,  believe  the  very 
passages  which  he  quoted  to  prove  his  proposition,  1 
will  proceed  to  show  you  what  the  issue  is.  His  pro- 
position reads:  -'The  Spirit  of  God  bears  adircc', 
iiinncdlale  aiil  jjcrsunat  kstiniony  to  the  believer  in 
Christ  of  his  pardon." 

Direct  testimony  from,  heaven,  means  testimony 
^vhich  comes  straight  down  from  God.  The  New 
Testament,  which  has  come  to  us  through  Christ  and 
the  Apostles,  has  nothing  to  do  vrith  it.  Immediate 
testimony,  means  testimony  wdiich  is  given  withou; 
Siivy  mciliam.  If  the  k^pirit  speaks  to  the  believer  di- 
rectly, the  testimony  is  not  immediate,  but  throicg/t  the 
medhtin  of  words.  Consequently,  Christ  and  the  A- 
postles  have  noticing  to  do  with  that;  for  it  is  wholly 
independent  of  them.  Well  may  the  advocates  of  im- 
mediate revelations  say  that  some  things  which  Christ 
and  the  Apostles  taught  are  not  true,  for  they  /k/ thern 
t.»  be  i'alse  in  their  souls.  Personal  testimony  means 
testimony  which  is  the  exclusive  property  of  the  person 
who  receives  it: — It  is  his  oint,  and  given  for  his  spe- 
cial benefit.  It  is  given  to  him,  but  to  no  one  else.  If 
it  comes  irom  God,  or  the  Spirit  of  God,  it  is  something 
revealed  to  him  that  is  not  revealed  to  any  one  else. 
It  is  then,  a  new  revelation,  distinct  from  the  bible,  and 
independent  of  it.*  Sach  highly  favored  ones  can  rly 
away  to  heaven,  and  no  thanks  to  Christ  and  the  A- 
postles  for  the  New  Testament. 

That  Mr,  Terrell  is  a  believer  in  the  new  and  imme- 
diate vrvclati'm  of  which  I  now  speak,  1  will  prove  hy 
a  proposition  v/hich  he  oifered  to  affirm  in  a  discussioa 
with  Bi'o.  Wright,  and  which  I  tind  published  by  Mr. 
Terrell  in  tlie  '■  Greensburg  R  epository.''     Hear  it  : 


■^230  DEBATE  ON  EAWlbM 

"The  evidence  which  a  Christian  has  of  his  pardon 

is     an    DIMEDIATE    REVELnTION    IN    HiS    HEART,    Viade    by     ik'i 

Holy  Spirit.^'' 

M\\  Terrell  is  then,  a  believer  in  immediate  revelations 
distinct  from  the  bible,  and  wholly  independent  of  it. 
This  is  just  what  he  is  to  prove  to-day.  S/iakers  and 
Quakers  are  not  !2:reater  believers  in  immediate  revela- 
tions than  Mr;  Terrell;  and  they  have  equally  as  much 
respect  for  the  word  of  God,  as  Mr.  Terrell  and  his 
party  have.     They  are  all  crazy  on  this  point. 

But  here  is  the  v/ord  '•  tesiunon-:/.^'  what  does  it  mean? 
I  will  let  Crabb  define  it.  He  ^ays  :  -^  Testimony  i>i 
a  species  of  evidence  by  means  by  means  of  witne-^ses^ 
from  t'3s(is,  a  witness.  Testimony  is  properly  parol 
evidence.  Testimony  is  that  which  is  offered  or  given 
by  persons  or  things  pcrsinjied  in  proof  of  any  thing ; 
evidence  is  said  to  arise  from  totimomi,  when  we  d^- 
]i<?.vA  upon  the  credit  and  relation  of  others  for  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  any  thing."  ,Synonymes,  p.  444. 

"  Evidence,"  he  says,  '*  arises  from  testimony  ;"  so 
evidenxie  and  testimony  are  not  the  same,  but  stand  re- 
lated to  each  ot!i(U'  as  causp,  and  effect.  A  witness  vv'ho 
bears  testimony  in  court,  makes  the  thing  about  which 
he  testifies  evident  to  the  court.  Testimony  is  design- 
ed to  make  things  evident  ;  but  a  thing  that  is  evident 
or  self-evident,  needs  not  testimony  to  make  it  so. — 
Hence,  we  say,  a  thing  is  evident  of  itself  and  needs 
not-  proof.  '•  Testimony''  says  Crabb,  '' ts  proprrly 
I'AROL  evidence.''  Mark  that!  Now,  ''parol"  means 
oral,  07'  by  word  of  month."  if  testimony  is  properly 
raro'l,  or  by  the  word  of  mouth,  then,  there  nevei^  was 
nor  never  can  be  such  a  thing  as  testimony  without 
words,  and  without  some  mouth  through  which  the 
words  were  spoken.  As  testimony  is  always  given  by 
the  word  of  mouth,  and  as  Mr.  Terrell  affirms  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  bears  an  immwliate  testimony,  he  is  guilty 
ofthe  /i;%of  affirming  that  the  Spirit  of  God  bears 
testimony  w/Uhoutany  me4iurti  but  Ikrouirh  th-"  meuivm  of 


AKD  THE  HOLY  SPiRlT.  231 

^voRr^s.  My  iirst  argument  against  his  proyjosition  is, 
ihat  there  never  was  nor  never  can  be  such  a  thing  as 
immediate  testimony,  for  testimoii^'is  alwiys  given  orut- 
ly  or  by  the  word  of  vctovkih 'y—fhrough  ike  medium  of 
wo?'ds,  and  immediate  means  irithnit  a  medimm.  .  ■I'esii- 
mony  may  be  written  after  it  is  spoken,  but  it  is  never 
«iven  without  words. 

Now  I  must  examine  some  of  Mr.  Terrell's  proof  of 
his  immediate  testimony.  His  first  was,  (i  suppose  he 
intended  it  as  proof,  for  J  saw  no  use  h^e  made  of  it) 
that  he  triumphantly  fomid  on  yesterday  that  we  are 
justitled  by  laitii  only.  JVIr.  Terrell  said,  it  was  by 
faith  opjy,  and  the  bible  says,  "  we  are  not  justified 
by  faith  only.''  I  suppose  the  gentleman  moans,  that 
he  triumphantly  prov-ed  that  the  bible  does  not  tell  the 
truth. 

His  second  was,  that  the  testimony  concerning  a 
fact  cannot  ixist  till  the  fact  itself  exists.  This  w^as  de- 
signed to  show,  that  th^  bible  is  not,  and  ctinnot 
be  any  evidence  of  pardon.  But  the  testimony  con- 
cerning a  fact,  he  says,  cannot  exist  till  the  fact  itself 
f^.xist.  Abraham  received  testimony  from  God,  that  in 
him  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed,  iw:) 
thotimnd  ytars  hefi^re  tke  fact  of  a  single  soul  being 
blessed  i?i  /Vm 'existed.  Abraham  thought  it  was  testi- 
mony. aFid  believed  it  with  all  his  hearty  but  he  was  a 
poor  stupid  creature,  for  iMr.  Terrell  says  it  w^as  not 
t^estimony.  for  the  testimony  concerning  a  fact  cannot 
<"-xist  till  the  {"act  itself  exists.  The  Apostles,  in  p*.-eacb- 
ing  Christ  in  every  part  of  th^3  vrorld,  appealed  to  the 
testimony  of  th^e  prophets,  which  v^as  given  froni  tive 
to  fifteen  hundred  years  before  the  death  of  Christ,  to 
prove  that  "  Christ  <'/t'c«',  was  buried,  and  that  he  rose 
again  the  third  day,  according  to  the  Scriptures."— 
But,  says  Mr.  Terrell,  the  Apostles  were  deceived,  the 
prophets  did  not  bear  testimony  to  these  facts,  ibr  the 
testimony  of  a  fact  cannot  exist  till  the  fact  itself  ex- 
8-sts.     But   w^  have  no  testimony  that  the  da:    '-vili 


TS'Z  ^  DEBATE  ON  BAFflSM 

ever  be  raised,  for  the  dead  are  not  5'et  raised,  arjcl 
Mr.  Terrell  says,  that  the  testimony  concerning  a  lact 
cannot  exist  till  the  fact  itselT^^itists.  Nor  have  we 
any  testimony  that  the  .Saints  of  God  will  evei  inhcrif^ 
the  kingdom  beyond  this  vale  of  tears,  they  do  not  yet 
inherit  it,  and  testimony  cannot  exist  till  the  fact  ex- 
ists, I\Ir.  Terrell  says.  There  have  been  thousand.-- 
condemned  and  hung,  upon  testimony  which  »^xisteci) 
before  they  were  guilty  of  muder.  Existiag  difficul- 
ties, and  threatening  to  murder,  have  Qi^en  brought  iu 
as  testimony  to  condemn  the  murderer  ;  and  by  suck 
testimony  ho  has  been  condemned.  How  easily  he 
might  have  escaped  the  sentence  ©f  eondemaationi  by 
calling  upon  Mr.  I'errell  to  plead  his  cause.  He  would 
have  told  the  court,  that  the  known  diificulties^  and  aU 
the  threa's  cf  the  murderer  were  not  testim^ony  against 
him,  nor  any  testimony  at  all,  for  testimony  cannot  ex- 
ist before  the  fact  exists. 

But,  he  asks,  how  can  the  bible  be  any  evideace  to^ 
v/.v.  that  wc  are  pardoned  ?  Our  nwws.  are  not  in  the 
bible.  Wonderful  discovery!  How  does  the  bible 
convince  a  nVan  that  he  is  a  siniaer  ?  His  Rame  is  not: 
in  it.  How  do  we  know  that  the  Lord  commands  Uiy 
to  repent  ?  Our  names  are  not  in  his  word.  How  do 
we  know  that  there  is  any  thing  promised  to  us,  \v& 
heaven,  earth  or  hell,  in  the  Bible  ?  Our  names  are 
not  m  the  bible.  Will  Mr.  Terrell  tell  us  in  what  lan- 
guage his  name  is  written  in  bis  nviD  rcvclaiiun  that  ho- 
is contending  for  ? 

Just  after  this,  he  said  :  If  a  child  violates  the  ce-n:*- 
mand  of  its  father,  it  cannot  know  that  it  iis  pardoned 
till  its  father  soys  so.  1  can  say  Amen  to  ths^t.  So  we 
who  violate  the  commands  of  God,  cannot  fcaow  that 
we  are  pardoned  till  God  scnjs  so.  'SVi/yi/ig  it  is  so,  ks 
not  immediate,  Mr.  Terrell,  bull  through  the  medium  of 
words. 

He  quoted  John,  5,6:  '-And  it  is  the  Spiritt  thart 
beareth  witness,"  to  pi'O.Ye  kis  propofiitiori.    The  issii^ 


AND  TilE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  233' 

is  not  whether  the  Spirit  bears  witness,  for  we  all  be- 
lieve that,  but  whether  the  Spirit  bears  immediate  tes- 
timony to  every  believer; — whether  it  makes  a  new 
revelation  distinct  from  the  bible,  and  independent 
of  it. 

He  quoted  also,  2  Cor. ;  5,  6,  "  Who  has  given  us  the 
earnest  of  the  Spirit?'  Now  that  passage  says  not 
one  .word  about  pardon,  not  one  word  about  his  new 
revelation,  nor  a  word  about  testimony,  personal  nor 
impersonal,  direct  nor  indirect,  immediate  nor  mediate. 
What,  then,  has  it  to  do  with  the  discu.ssion  ? 

God  haspo/xY.r  to  make  a  mnc  revelation,  he  says.— 
Yes,  and  he  has  power  to  destroy  this  world,  instantly,, 
bui  will  he  do  it  because  l^e  has  the  power?  We  are 
not  debating  about  what  God  can  do,  or  what  he, can- 
not do,  but  what  does  he  do  ?  Whether  he  makes  a 
new  revelation  to  every  believer  or  not  ? 

The  evidence  of  a  sinner's  pardon  is  not  furnished  in, 
the  bible,  he  says.  We  will  see  how  this  is  be/ore  we 
are  done  with  this  pi'oposition.  Before  showing  you 
what  the  testimony  is  by  which  we  know  we  are  par- 
doned, I  must  bring  before  you  a  specimen  of  the  new 
j-evelations  of  Mr.  Terrell,  and  the  manner  in  which 
they  are  received.  I  find  one  to  my  hand  in  Wesley'&^ 
Journal  for  May,  1759.     Hear  it: 

••  At  eleven  1  preached  at  Bearfield  to  about  three 
thousand,  on  the  spirit  of  nature,  of  bondage,  and  of 
adoption.  i\eturning  in  the  evening  I  was  exceeding 
pressed  to  go  back  to  a  young  woman  in  Kings  wood. 
(The  fact  I  nakedly  relate,  and  leave  every  man  to  his 
own judgmentof  it.)  1  went.  She  was  nineteen  or 
twenty  years  old  ;  but  it  seems  could  not  write  or 
read."  (A  first  rate  subject  for  the  delusion.)  '•  i 
found  her  on  the  bed,  two  or  three  persons  holding 
her.  It  was  a  terrible  sight.  Auguish,  horror,  and 
despair,  above  all  description,  appeared  in  her  pali> 
face.  The  thousand  distortions  of  her  whole  body. 
.showed  hov/  the  do'^s  of  hell  were  gnawing  h.er  heart. 


234  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

tSbe  screamed  out  as  soon  as  words  could  tind  their 
way,  1  am  damned,  I  am  damned:  lost  forever.  Six 
days  ago  you  might  have  helped  me  ;  but  it  is  past;  I 
^am  the  devil's  now.  i  have  given  myself  to  him.  His 
i  am.  Him  I  must  serve.  With  liim  I  must  go  to 
heli.  I  will  be  his.  I  will  serve  him.  I  will  go  with 
him  to  hell.  I  cannot  be  saved.  I  will  not  be  saved. 
i  must,  I  will,  1  will  be  damned.  She  then  began 
praying  to  t^e  devil."  (Remember  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  is  supposed  to  make  her  say,  and  do  all  these 
things.)  "  She  then  fixed  her  eyes  on  the  corner  of 
the  ceiling,  and  said,  There  he  is ;  ay,  there  he  is ; 
come,  good  devil,  come.  Take  me  away.  You  said 
you  would  dash  maij  brains  out;  come,  do  it  quickly.  I 
am  yours, — lam  yours.  I  will  be  yours.  Come  just 
now.     Take  me  away."' 

Now,  after  all  this  foolish  and  ridiculous  talk, 
which  is  said  to  have  been  caused  by  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,  this  Vv^oman,  who  could  neither  read  nor  write, 
is  said  to  have  received  the  ivw  revelation  for  which 
Mr.  Terrell  contends.  This  ca.se  is  but  a  specimen  of 
fiundreds  given  by  Wesley  and  others.  And  we  are 
called  upon  to  regard  such  thing.s  as  more  sacred  thr-in 
the  word  of  God. 

(Here  Mr.  Terrell  said — Please  read  where  she  vva--' 
converted.) 

Mr.  Fritchard — I  will  : 

"  We  interrupted  her  by  calling  upon  God  again  : 
on  which  she  sunk  down  as  before  ;  and  another  young 
'Jady  began  to  roar  out  as  loud  as  she  had  done.  My 
Brother  now  came  in,  it  being  about  nine  o'clock.  W<* 
continued  in  prayer  till  past  eleven;  when  God  in  a 
moment  i^polc peace,  info  the  soul^  first,  of  the  first  torment- 
ed, and  then  of  the  other.  '  And  they  both  joined  in 
isinging  praises  to  him  who  had  stiUcd  the  enemy,  and 
Ihe  avenger.''' 

Now,  here  it  is  ;  the  Spirit  it  supposed  to  lay  hold  of 
■  he  woman,  and  make  her  pray  to  the  devil ;  say  shf^ 


*     AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  235 

IS  his — that  she  belongs  to  him.  That  she  ijs  his — that 
she  must  be  damned  ;  cannot  be  saved,  but  must  go  to 
hell  with  the  devil.  That  he  promised  to  come  and 
dash  her  brains  out,  and  to  pray  to  him  to  come  and 
do  it  quickly.  Now,  did  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  or  the 
excitement  of  the  meeting,  make  her  tell  all  these 
falsehoods?  Does  the  Spirit  convert  men  by  making 
them  lie  ?  We  know  it  does  not.  But  we  are  told 
that  the  same  Spirit  which  made  her  tell  all  these 
things,  which  we  know  to  be  untrue,  revealed  to  her, 
a  few  minutes  after,  that  she  was  a  child  of  God,  and 
not  the  devil's  at  all,  as  it  had  told  her  before.  A  man 
w^ho  can  believe  all  this,  can  certainly  believe  in  a  new 
revelation  distinct  from  the  Bible,  and  independent 
of  it. 

(Here  the   President  3Ioderator -said  : — Mr.  Pdtch- 
ard,  are  your  remarks  relevant  to  the  subject?) 

J\lv.  Pritchard — They  are ;  I  certainly  have  a  right 
to  examine  the  very  thing  Mr  Terrell  relies  on  for  his 
proof  of  pardon.  Such  extravagances  as  these  of 
which  we  now  speak  can  be  brought  about  by  any 
man  of  common  sense,  good  or  bad,  if  he  will  only  try 
to  do  it.  Mr.  Wesley  says  that  he  could  always  tell 
-.vho  would  be  the  subjects  of  these  strange  bodily  ag- 
itations by  their  position  in  the  audience.  You  gen- 
erally see  them  take  their  seats,  fix  themselves  in  one 
|)Osition,  and  their  eyes  upon  the  preacher,  and  sit  in 
that  position  till  they  fall  into  that  singular  state.— 
What  more  does  a  professor  of  Mesmerism  ask,  to 
produce  the  same  effects  upon  any  man.  All  the  phe- 
nomena of  a  Methodist  co'nversion  can  be  explained 
upon  the  principles  of  Mesmerism.  They  are  not  su- 
pernatural and  spiritual,  but  purely  natural  and  ani- 
mal. We  see  the  same  things  in  some  form  every  day. 
They  are  brought  about  by  the  great  and  universal 
law  of  nature, — that  of  eqxdlibrium.  If  we  see  a  man 
laughing,  we  are  almost  certain  to  laugh  or  smile, 
■even  if  we  do  not  know  what  he  is  laughing  at.     if 


» 

236  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM  • 

we  see  a  person  crying,  and  apparently  m  great  cIIs 
tress,  we  feel  and  weep,  because  we  see  him  weeping 
The  principle  is,  that  persons  with  whom  we  associate 
will,  if  we  do  not  resist,  make  us  feel  and  acty  as  they 
feel  and  act.  Paul  recognized  the  principle  when  ht 
•said  :  Evil  communications  corrupt  good  manners  ;" 
and  we  know  that  associating  with  good  men  wih 
correct  bad  manners.  Whenever  any  man  or  set  ol 
men,  good  or  bad,  get  our  conhdence  and  love,  they 
will  make  us  feel,  think,  act,  and  do  just  as  we  do. 

(Here  the  Moderator  said  again — Will  you  tell  us 
in  what  respect  you  consider  your  remark  relevant?) 

Mr.  Pritchard — If  I  examine  the  thing  on  which  Mr. 
Terrell  relies  for  proof,  and  show  that  it  can  be  ex- 
plained upon  natural  principles,  it  will  follow,  that  il 
is  not  a  revelation  from  God. 

(Moderator— You  are  right.     You  can  proceed.) 

W^ho  does  not  know  what  1  now  say  to  be  true? — 
Who  has  not  seen,  in  tnis  country,  peaceable  men. 
when  two  of  their  neighbors  would  get  into  a  fight, 
pull  oh'  their  coats  and  declare  that. they  could  whip 
any  man  on  the  ground  ;  and  that  too,  without  any 
one  saying  one  word  to  them.  iXovv,  if  these  things 
be  so,  (and  we  know  them  to  be  so)  what,  I  ask,  in  all 
tiie  world  is  more  nainrai.  than  for  men  and  women,  in 
the  times  of  great  and  general  religious  excitement, 
hearing  the  songs,  the  groans,  the  prayers,  and  feel- 
ing exhortations,  and  also  the  shouts  and  screams  of 
of  the  ignorant,  cind  believing"  them  to  be  the  legi- 
timate fruits  of  religion,  to  feel  like  singing,  groan- 
ing, praying,  shouting  and  -screaming  as  their  asso^ 
ciates  do?  These  things  wiiich  we  see  and  hear  al- 
most every  day,  are  looked  upon  as  the  effects  of  a 
direct  and  immediate  revelation  to  the  subjects  ol 
these  bodily  agitations. 

That  they  are  not  from  God,  but  purely  animal  in 
their  nature,  and  the  legitimate  olispring  of  excitement 
1  will  now  prove.     When  Wesit^y  was  preaching  "free 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  237 

s^tace  and  sinners  rights,"  he  prayed  to  God  "that  if  it 
be  the  truth,  to  set.  to  it  his  seal;  and  almost  before?  we 
asked,"  said  he,  "God  f^ealcd  the  truth  by  causing  one 
and  another,  and  another  to  ^//,"  till  the  whole  audience 
;5eemed  to  be  crying  for  mercy.  This  was  the  very  thing 
he  willed  and  labored  for. 

Whitefield,  who  was  preaching,  at  the  same  time, 
Galvanism  in  its  worst  form,  prayed  in  like  manner  for 
God  to  set  his  seal  to  what  he  preached,  and  in  an  au- 
dience of  '^twelve  tiiuus find  "  he  seiys/'Some  fainted;  and 
when  they  had  got  a  little  strength  would  hea?^  and  faint 
again.  Otherscried  out  in  a  manner  almost  as  if  they 
were  in  ihesharpest  as^onies  of  death.  I  think  I  was  ne- 
ver myself ^^.M  with  greater  power."  Never  before  did 
I  see  a  morel  gorious  siglity 

Now,  who  can  believe  that  God,  by  a  direct  revela- 
tion, revealed  to  Mr.  Wesley,  that  what  he  preached 
was  true,  and  to  Whitefield,  that  precisely  the  opposite 
v.'as  true?  Who  does  not  rather  believe,  that  Wesley 
and  Whitefield  made  their  oun  seals,  for  their  doctrine 
by  their  enthusiasm,  and  that  God  had  nothing  to  do 
with  them?  * 

I  must  briefly  state  a  fev/  morefacts  in  relation  to 
These  things.  1.  The  subject  of  the  agitations  are  not 
among  the  most  jnous  and  Godly  of  the  parties  to 
which  they  belong;  nor  are  they  generally  looked  upon 
by  their  brethren  as  the  most  valuable  members  of  the 
party.  The  most  hypocritical  generally  have  the  bright- 
est revelations,  and  the  most  marvelous  experiences  to 
tell.  2.  These  bodily  agitations  have  not  been  con- 
fined to  the  religious,  for  men  of  all  ranks,  and  of  all 
parties,  and  of  almost  all  nations  and  countries,  savage 
and  civiUzed  have  been  the  subjects  of  them;  but  never 
only  in  the  times  of  great  and  general  excitement. 

Among  the  Romans  nearly  two  thousand  years  ago, 
in  the  time  of  a  great  political  excitement,  these  things 
appeared  among  the  nervous  of  that  people;  and  so 
general  and  alarming  were  they  that  the  Romans  made 


238  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

a  law,  that,  when  any  one  in  their  assemblies  should  he 
taken  with  these  bodily  and  nervous  agitations,  the  as- 
sembly should  imtnediately  brake  up  and  go  home  till 
the  excitement  was  over. 

3.  In  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuFies,  these  same 
nervous  agitPttions  appeared  among  the  Roman  Cath- 
olics in  Germany  and  France;  and  so  alarming  were 
they  ill  their  elTect,  that  in  Germany,  laws  were  made 
aj?ainst  them,  and  in  France  many  of  the  subjects  of 
them  were  put  to  death  because  they  were  supposed  to 
be  possessed  of  dsmons.  The  excitement  which  pro- 
duced them,'!  believe,  was  caused  by  crowds  of  then^ 
going  together  to  visit  the  tombs  of  the  departed 
saints. 

4,  These  agitations  have  not  been  peculiar  to  any 
party,  for  Romans,  Pagan  and  Papal,  Presbyterians, 
Methodists,  Baptists,  Mormons,  Quakers,  and  Shakers 
have  all  been  troubled  with  them.  The  JWopmons  Me- 
thodists and  Skakers  depend  more  upon  these  things  to 
prove  that  they  are  of  God,  than  upon  any  thing  else. 
If  they  prove  one  right,  they  prove  all  right.  If  they 
^re  immediate  to  one  they  are  to  all.     So  I  think. 

Time  expired. 

MR.    TER5tELL°3    SECOND    ADDRESS — 4tH  PROP. 

G-pRtlemen  moderators: 

I  should  think  I  was  paying  but  a  poor  complement 
to  the  intelligence  of  this  large  and  respectable  audience 
should  I  imagine  or  pretend  to  imagine  thatthey  would 
look  upon  the  boisterous  ravings  of  my  friend  as  argu- 
ments or  that  they  contained  any  thing  like  argument. 
But!  have  no  idea  that  any  person  here  wdll  think  so. 
He  has  not  touched  the  point  at  issue  at  all,  and  my 
arguments  in  my  first  speech  remain  untouched,  and 
unanswered,  and  forever  must  remain  so. 

Mr.  Pritchard  read  fi-om  Mr.  Wesley's  writings  about 
the  young  lady  that  Mr.  Wesley  visited.  Now  we  ne- 
\er  contended,  nor  did  Mr.  Wesley  ever  contend,  that 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRST.  2%9 

this  effect  as  seen  in  the  young  lady  s  word^  and  man- 
ners was  the  effect  of  the  gospel.  Mr.  Wesley  says, 
page  48,  "This  ranting  is  the  effect  ol' the  dogsof  heil,'^ 
and  not  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  He  thought,  as  we  do, 
that  there  is  an  influence  attending  the  word;  aud  this 
case  brought  from  Mr.  Wesley's  works,  is  merely  a 
qaibble  ol'  the  gentleman.  When  I  was  coming  here 
this  morning,  1  remarked  that  Mr.  Pritchard  would  try 
to  get  off  with  a  quibble.  I  felt  satisfied  of  this,  not  that 
I  can  prophesy;  but  as  I  came  so  well  prepared  to  prove 
wh^t  1  contend  for,  I  felt  that  he  must  and  w' ould  resort 
to  quibbling.  He  has  proved  that  my  expectations 
\vere  correct,  by  his  quibbling  and  evasive  manner. 

My  arguments  the  other  day  were  true,  and  they  will 
stand  while  the  world  stands.  The  word  of  God  is 
furnished  for  us  to  try  our  pardon  by.  If  it  does  not 
correspond  with  the  word,  it  is  wrong  of  course.  This 
the  gentleman  knows.  He  only  endeavored  to  raise 
a  dust  to  cover  a  retreat. 

Had  not  Abraham  the  evidence  of  promise?  Yes,  he 
had,  but  not  that  the  fact  had  taken  place.  Abraham 
died  in  faith.  The  evidence  that  Christ  had  tasted 
death  was  only  after  his  death.  The  evidence  of  Christ's 
resurrection  was  after  the  fact,  and  could  not  have  been 
before. 

He  speaks  about  a  new  revelation,  but  I  will  read 
you  a  passage:  ''For  ye  have  heard  of  my  conversation 
in  times  past,  in  the  Jews  religion,  how  that  beyond 
measure  I  persecuted  the  church  of  God  and  wasted  it; 
and  profited  in  the  Jews  religion  above  many  of  my 
equals  in  mine  own  nation,  being  more  exceedingly 
zealous  of  the  traditions  of  my  fathers,,  but  when  it 
pleased  God,  who  separated  me  from  my  mothers  womb 
and  called  me  by  his  grace;  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me, 
that  I  might  preach  him  among  the  heathen,  immedi- 
ately I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and  blood."  Now  this 
revelation  was  made  in  Paul's  heart. 

He  undertook  to  criticise  me  this  morning,     I  have; 


^40  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Understood  that  this  was  the  best  way  to  puzzle  any 
body,  and  when  all  other  things  may  fail,  this  may  be 
used  as  a  last  resort.  His  first  question  was:  "Do  you 
not  know  that  as  a  church,  we  believe  in  the  operation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit?"  I  answer,  that  I  do  not  know 
that  Mr.  Pritchard  or  the  church  he  belongs  to  believe 
any  such  thing.  Mr  Campbell  talks  of  the  indweUing 
dwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  but  so  far  as  I  can  tell,  he 
denies  it  elsewhere. 

Mr.  Campbell  says,  if  a  rnan  thinks  he  is  pardoned, 
he  will  be  just  as  happy  as  if  he  really  was  pardoned. 
That  is  the  way  he  talks  about  it.  But  I  will  read 
from  his  "Christian  System,"  page  248: 

"Think  you  that  the  family  of  Noah  could  have  been 
saved  if  they  had  refused  to  enter  into  the  ark? 
Could  the  first  born  of  Israel  hav€  escaped  the  destroy- 
ing angel,  but  in  houses  sprinkled  with  blood?  Or  could 
Israel  have  escaped  the  wrath  of  Pharaoh,  but  by  being 
immersed  into  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea? — 
These  things  are  written  for  our  admonition,  upon  whom 
the  consummation  of  past  ages  has  come.  Arise,  then, 
and  be  immersed,  and  wash  away  thy  sins  calling  on 
the  name  of  the  Lord.  The  fnani/ioho  7^€  fuse  grace,  will 
neither  prove  you  wise  nor  safe  in  disobedience." 

Here  immersion  is  taught,  as  the  great  requisite. — 
Mark  the  language!  Every  one  must  be  immersed  or 
else  he  cannot  be  saved!  It  is  for  remission  of  sins  too. 
This  cuts  olf  every  Baptist,  and  all  the  professing  world 
who  have  not  been  immersed  for  remission  of  sins. — 
Mr.  Campbell  has  passed  sentence  upon  you  all;  but 
the  sinner  who  is  immersed,  comes  up  out  of  the  water 
as  pure  and  spotless  as  an  angel.  These  with  him  are 
those  who  have-the  Spirit  of  God  dwelling  in  them; 
but  all  the  balance  of  mankind  are  without  any  evi- 
dence ot  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Thank  God,  this  is 
not  the  religion  of  Christ.  I  might  immerse  a  hypocrite 
a  thousand  times  and  he  would  only  be  a  hypocrite 
still.     But  according  to  his  doctrine  if  a  man  should  get 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  241 

to  kell  and  imagine  himself  pardoned,  lie  would  be 
happy.     W'ho  will  believe  such  doctrine? 

He  refers  to  James  again  to-day.  I  suppose  he  is  not 
satisfied  with  the  day's  work  on  yesterday.  I  am  not 
surprised  if  he  is  not  satisfied,  lor  I  should  not  be,  if  I 
were  in  his  place.  Must  I  explain  that  passage  again? 
I  cannot  think  it  necessary.  What  I  said  on  that  sub- 
ject yesterday  is  well  recollected  by  this  audience.  I 
hope  he  vvill  now  be  satisfied  about  the  passage  from 
James,  as  I  have  not  time  to  go  over  the  ground  occu- 
pied on  yesterday. 

He  says  the  Romans  made  a  law.  I  know  they  made 
a  law  against  the  saints.  But  docs  he  mean  the  law 
that  broke  up  the  worship  of  Christians?  or  v/hat 
law  does  he  mean?  I  could  not  see  what  he  had  in  view 
when  he  referred  to  this  matter.  He,  of  course,  u^asnot 
to  the  point. 

Mr.  Pritchard  makes  being  born  again  the  evidence 
of  pardon;  but  to  this  I  object,  and  I  may  as  well  file 
my  objections  now  as  at  any  other  time. 

1.  He  must  have  a  proper  subject  or  it  must  be  a 
failure.  He  is  liable  to  be  deceived  and  think  a  person 
a  proper  subject  when  he  is  not,  and  in  this  case  being 
born  df  water  is  no  evidence.  Here  is  one  chance  for 
a  failure. 

2.  He  must  have  a  proper  administrator,  or  the  work 
is  null  and  void.  Here  is  a'  great  uncertainty.  No 
one  can  know  the  heart  of  another,  and  if  the  admin- 
istrator should  be  a  wicked  man,  all  his  official  perfor- 
mances would  be  ofx  no  consequence.  Here  is  another 
place  for  deception,  and  a  very  large  one  too. 

3.  If  it  be  not  done  with  water,  it  is  not  acceptable 
and  the  water  must  be  pure  and  clean  at  that.  Con- 
sequently you  must  be  where  there  is  water  to  immerse, 
or  die  without  any  evidence  of  pardon.  Here  is  an- 
other ditiiculty,  and  a  very  great  one  too. 

4.  If  it  be  not  done  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  it  is 
not  valid.  Here  is  another  opportunity  for  wrong  or 
for  mistake.  P 


'ii2  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

5.  If  our  bodies  were  washed  in  a  puddle-hole,  it  wouid 
not  be  pure  water?  Can  he  say  his  body  was  washed 
with  pure  water?  Surely  he  cannot.  jNFow  you  seo 
what  becomes  of  his  system  when  brought  to  the  test. 
It  will  not  bear  examination. 

He  has  commented  on  "the  deep  things  of  God"  men- 
tioned in  one  of  my  proof  texts,  but  what  has  he  made 
out  of  it?  Has  he  answered  my  argument?  No,  my 
Christian  friends  and  he  never  can.  1  have  shown  you 
that  the  pardon  of  sin  is  an  act  of  God,  an  act  of  the 
mind  of  God.  or  one  of  the  deep  things  of  God,  which 
the  apostle  says  no  man  can  know;  but  the  Spirit 
searcheth  all  things,  yea  the  deep  things  of  God.  Tlie 
pardoning  act  then,  being  God's  act,  and  it  not  being 
in  the  power  of  man  to  know  it,  only  as  the  Spirit  of 
God  reveals  it,  my  proposition  is  proved  true  beyond 
all  doubt. 

Another  argument  bearing  upon  this  point  is  the  fact 
that  no  evidence  of  any  act  can  possibly  exist  before 
the  act  itself  exists.  This  argument  Mr.  Pritchard  has 
not,  and,  I  think,  he  will  not  touch.  Pardon  takes  place 
in  heaven,  and  no  evidence  of  it  can  exist  before  it 
takes  place,  and  consequently  it  cannot  be  in  the  bible; 
for  ail  the  evidence  in  the  bible  was  there  before  any 
man  in  our  times  was  pardoned,  and  consequently  bore 
just  as  much  testimony  in  the  case  before  he  was  par- 
doned as  after.  But  it  is  not  so  with  the  witness  of 
the  Spirit.  It  comes  right  from  God,  personally  and 
immediately,  and  is  a  proper  witness  to  what  was  tran- 
sacted in  heaven. 

"The  Spirit  bears  witness  w^ith  our  spirits  that  we 
are  the  children  of  God,  and  if  children,  then  heirs, 
heirs  of  God,  and  joint  heirs  with  Christ."  Here,  bles- 
sed be  God  is  the  testimony  of  pardon,  and  all  the 
world  can  never  get  round  it.  This  one  passage  would 
be  sufficient  if  I  could  not  produce  another  one.  I  feel 
strong  on  this  passage.     I  here  plant  down  my  stakes,. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  243 

and  the  gentleman  may  do  his  utmost,   but  move   me 
he  never  can. 

That  holy  comforter — the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
nt,  is  the  blessed  assurance  of  the  good  man.  There 
are  three  that  bear  witness,  and  blessed  be  God,  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  one  of  the  witnesses,  and  the  gentleman 
can'never  take  this  holy  comforter  from  us.  It  comes 
right  from  God.  and  bears  witness  to  the  act  of  God,  in 
pardoning  our  sins,  and  gives  us  to  feel  a  foretaste  of 
heaven  in  the  .soul.  0,  my  christian  friends;  this  is 
dearer  than  life  to  me.  Take  from  me  this  blessed 
witness  and  all  is  lost.  God  can  reveal  to  us  the  fact 
that  he  has  pardoned  our  sins.  He  has  the  power  to 
do  it.  He  has  promised  to  us  tlie  witness  of  the  Spi- 
rit. He  is  good  enough  to  fulfil  that  promis  e,  and  I  be- 
lieve he  does  faliil  it.  He  does  then  pardon  men,  and 
cviK  and  will  give  them  the  evidence  of  it. 
(Time  expired.) 

MR.    PRrrCHARD*3    SECOND    REPLY 4tK    PROP. 

Gentlemen  Moderators  : 

As  there  was  nothing  worthy  of  attention  in  the  last 
speech  of  Mr.  Terrell,  1  will  commence  this  where  I 
closed  the  other.  I  will  notice  all  he  has  said  in  due 
time.  To  show  you  that  the  bodily  agitations  which 
always  attend  Methodist  conversions,  and  which  are 
looked  upon  by  them  as  certain  toke.ita  of  divine  pres- 
ence, are  not  caused  by  the  direct  and  immediate 
jower  of  God,  I  will  present  a  few  more  facts  in  rela- 
tion to  them,  in  addition  to  those  already  before  you. 
My  fifth  fact  is, 

5.  That  you  may  send  out  a  man  of  piety,  modesty, 
and  of  good  sense,  who  will  state  his  proposition,  and 
bring,  in  a  dry  and  uninteresting  way,  argum.ent  after 
argument,  as  strong  as  holy  writ,  to  sustain  it,  aad 
the  people  who  hear  his  discourses,  instead  of  "faint- 
ing, then  hear  and  faint  again,  then  cry  out  as  if  they 
were  ia  the  sharpest  agonies  of  death/'  v/il!  sit  and 


244  DEBATE  ON"  DAPIISM 

^leep  profoundly  while  he  speaks;  and  will  leave  the 
house  saying,  "he  is  the  dricut  preacher  I  ever  heard, 
he  don't  make  us  feel  like  Bro.  B.  does."  But  if  you 
will  send  out  a  man  of  wickedness  and  corruption,  and 
with  the  eloquence  of  a  MaSt,  and  one  too,  into  whose 
head  an  argument  never  entered,  he  will  set  an  audi- 
ence on  fire  in  ten  minutes,  and  in  one  hour  will  pro- 
duce all  the  bodily  agitations,  fainting  and  frilling  ot 
Shaksrism;  and  v/ill  also  produce  all  the  screams  and 
yells  of  a  Methodist  camp-meeting.  Now,  I  ask  every 
man  of  common  sense,  if  it  can  be  possible,  that  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  forsakes  the  good  old  man  of  piety 
and  common  sense  because  of  his  modesty,  and  asso- 
ciates with  the  corrupt  and  audacious  because  of  his 
eJoqumce  and  impudence  ;  and  under  his  labors  pro- 
duces all  il\e  phenomena  of  a  Methodist  conversion  ? — 
Who  can  believe  it  ? 

6.  My  sixth  fact  is,  that  these  bodily  agitations  — 
the  strange  phenomena  of  Methodist  conversions  have 
always  visited  the  religious  tribes  who  encourage,  and 
seek  a,fter  them,  but  they  have  never  been  known  to 
visit  a  people  who  discountenanced  them,  nor  enter  a 
religious  community  where  they  were  not  welcome. 
Now,  it  must  be  admitted,  that  Presbyterians,  and  oth- 
ers \Y\iO  discountenance  them,  are  as  pious,  godly,  and 
religious,  as  Methodists,  Shakers,  or  Mormons,  who 
encourage  them.  Presbyterians,  Baptists,  and  others 
have  sometimes  been  troubled  with  such  men  as  Ed- 
wards, and  consequently  with  these  strange  phenom- 
ena, but  still  they  do  not  countenance  or  encourage 
them. 

7.  My  seventh  fact  is,  that  persons  who  are  thrown 
into  this  singular  state  at  religious  meetings,  in  the 
times  of  g:reat  excitement,  can  be,  and  have  been  re- 
stored to  a  sound  mind  in  two  or  three  minutes  by  an  ex- 
perienced Mesmcrizer.  Dr.  Dodds,  in  his  Lectures, 
mentions  some  cases,  and  pledges  himself  to  restore 
any  one  in  five  mimifcs.  Can  feeble  man  drive  the 
Spirit  of  God  away?     We  know  he  cannot. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  245 

8.  My  eighth  fact  is,  that  this  excitement,  and  these 
nervous  and  bodily  agitations  have  been  known  to  re- 
sult in  death  ;  but  the  Spirit  of  God  was  never  known 
to  iniLvcUr  a  man,  w^oman  or  child  while  trying  to  con- 
vert him  Of  her.  In  the  town  of  Brownsville,  Union 
CO.,  Indiana,  only  some  sixteen  or  eighteen  miles  from 
this  place,  a  lady  died  in  the  meeting  house,  in  the 
presence  of  hundreds  of  persons,  some  of  whom  are 
now  present,  v/hile  under  the  bodily  agitations  of  a 
Methodist  conversion.  Her  new  revelation  was  a 
powerful  and  fatal  one.  The  Methodists  v/ho  excited 
her  will  remember  it  for  some  time  to  come. 

9.  My  ninth  fact  is,  that  Methodists  do  not  believe 
themselves,  that  the  work  which  is  among  them  is  the 
result  of  a  direct  and  immediate  impulse  of  the  Spirit; 
for  they  never  expect  it,  and  never  have  it  without  a 
powerful  cxerLon  on  their  part  lo  bring  it  about.  They 
give  feeling  exhortations,  tell  affecting  anecdotes  of 
the  conversions  and  happy  deaths  of  fathers  and 
mothers,  call  the  people  to  the  mourner's  beiich,  hal- 
low glory,  sing,  shake  hands,  and  make  use  of  all  oth- 
er means  of  which  they  can  think,  lavvl'ul  and  unlaw- 
ful, to  raise  the  excitement,  and  bi'ing  about  their  con- 
versions. Nov.%  if  they  believe  it  is  all  the  work  of 
the  Spirit,  why  do  they  make  use  of  such  means  ?  If 
Mr.  Terrell  should  answer,  that  the  Spirit  will  not 
operate  unless  they  make  use  of  such  means,  he  will 
give  up  the  question  ;  for  that  would  make  the  opera- 
tion through  the  medium  of  their  exertion,  and  not 
immediate  as  he  affirms.  My  word  for  it,  it  they  will 
meet,  and  behave  themselves  decently,  as  others  do, 
such  things  will  never  be  seen  among  them. 

10.  My  tenth  fact  is,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  a  wit- 
ness, and  bears  testimony  to  a  great  many  things  as 
well  as  pardon.  It  testifies  to  the  world,  that  Jesus  is 
the  Christ  the  Son  of  God.  It  testifies  to  the  world, 
that  Jesus  died,  was  buried,  and  raised  again.  A"ow, 
in  not  one  instance,  of  all  the  instances  in  which  the 


246  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

Spirit  has  given  testimoii}-,  can  it  be  shown,  that  the 
testimony  t)f  the  Spirit  was  immediate.  Its  testimony 
was  not  in  a  single  instance  immediate,  but  always 
through  the  medium  of  words. 

11.  My  eleventh  fact  is,  that  the  v/ord  of  God  is  al- 
Vv'ays,  and  at  all  times,  in  the  heart  of  every  believer  : 
and  the  man  in  whose  heart  the  word  of  God  is  not,  is 
not  a  believer.  "  AVhen  you  received  the  word  of  God 
which  you  heard  of  us,  you  received  it  not  as  the  words 
of  men,  but,  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God,  which  ef- 
fectually worketh  also  in  you  that  believe."  1  Thess., 
2:  13.  "The  icorcl  is  nigh  thee,  even  in  thy  mouth, 
and  in  thy  heart,  that  is,  the  word  of  faith  which  we 
preach."  Rom.,  10:  8.  •'  Let  the  word  of  Christ  dwell 
in  you  richly  in  all  wisdom."  Col.  3:  16.  These  pas- 
sages show  that  the  vrord  of  God  is  always  in  the 
heart  of  every  believer,  and  that  it  effectually  works 
in  them.  Now,  if  these  things  be  so,  then  it  will  fol- 
low, that  there  can  be  no  work  or  operation  in  their 
hearts  without  the  word,  for  the  word  is  always  there, 
and  always  working  there. 

12.  M}' twelfth  fact  is,  that  there  is  not  one  conver- 
sion in  all  the  l^ew  Testament  of  the  ]\fethodist  stamp. 
There  is  no  account  of  the  people  "  fainting,  hearing 
and  fainting  again."  There  is  no  account  of  them 
coming  to  the  mourner's  bench,  and  crying  and  scream- 
ing, as  if  "  the  dogs  of  hell  were  gnawing  upon  their 
iiearts."  There  is  no  account  of  their  falling  down  by 
tens  and  twenties,  as  i[ dead,  and  coming  out  of  that 
state  shouting  and  screaming  like  mad-men.'  In  all  the 
operations  of  the  Spirit  among  the  people  in  the  days 
of  the  Apostles,  there  is  no  account  of  it  producing  the 
disorder  and  confusion  of  a  Methodist  camp-meeting, 
and  other  meetings  of  that  party.  Now,  if  Methodists 
preach  Christianity,  if  their  conversions  are  genuine, 
and  if  the  Spirit  operates  among  them,  and  produces 
all  the  disorder  and  confusion  in  their  meetings  by  a 
direct  and  immediate  impulse,  then  the  Apostle  did  not 


AKD  T«E  HOLY  SPIRIT.  247 

preach  Christianity,  their  conversions  were  not  genu- 
ine, and  the  Spirit  did  not  operate  among  them,  for  no 
such  disorder,  shouting,  screaming,  and  confusion  at- 
tended their  labors  at  any  place. 

13.  My  thirteenth  fact  is,  that  the  disorder  and  con- 
tusion, so  common  among  Methodists,  and  which  are 
regarded  by  them  as  certain  tokens  of  divine  presence, 
ar-e  contrary  to,  and  directly  opposed  to  the  teaching 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  ^e\v  Testament.  In  giv- 
ing directions  to  the  members  of  the  church  how  to  be- 
have themselves  in  the  house  of  God,  Paul  says  :  "  For 
you  may  all  prophesy  (teach)  one  b^  o/ic,  that  all  may 
Jearn,  and  all  may  be  comforted."'  Now,  while  all  are 
permitted  to  teach  in  the  church,  they  are  not  all  per- 
mitted to  scream  ^and  yell  in  perfect  confusion,  as  Meth- 
odists do,  but  are  to  speak  "one  by  one'" — one  at  a 
time,  "  that  all  may  learn,  and  all  be  comforted."  Can 
it  be  possible,  that  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  truth  is  so 
inconsistent  in  its  teaching,  as  to  tell  us  in  the  bible 
that  we  are  not  to  speak  in  confusion  all  at  once,  but 
are  to  speak  one  at  a  time,  '•  that  all  may  hear,  learn, 
and  be  comforted,"  and  th-en  go  right  off  to  the  very  peo- 
ple to  whom  it  give  the  command,  enter  into  them, 
and  by  a  direct  and  irresistible  impulse,  compel  them 
to  do  precisely  the  opposite  of  what  it  commanded 
them  to  do?  Who  can  believe  it?  If  the  bible  is 
right,  these  things  are  wrong;  and  if  these  things  are 
right,  the  bible  is  wrong  ;  for  the  author  of  them,  is  not 
the  author  of  the  bible.  Some  of  those  J-^agrmhcd  pro- 
fessors  of  that  day  told  Paul,  as  some  of  the  same  stamp 
now  tell  us,  that  they  could  resist  the  operations  of  the 
Spirit.  Paul  replied  :  "  The  spirits  of  the  prophets  are 
•subject  to  the  prophets."  From  this  we  learn,  that 
the  operations  of  the  Spirit  are  always  in  harmony 
with  our  rational  nature.  Now,  if  ever  this  yellinr, 
balling,  f;iinting,  screaming,  and  all  the  other  d.'s- 
^raceful  things  of  a  mourner's  bench  conversiori,  tne 
people  IjiH'e  no  control,  then  the  people  are  the  sub- 


^x'^  I>EBATE  ON  BAP72S3r 

jects  of  an  irresistible  influence,  and  it  is  not  true,  tfm-i 
the  Spirit  is  subject  to  the  man  who  possesses  it,  ay 
Paul  says  it  is.  VVhieh  shall  we  believe,  the  Spirit  ol 
God  in  the  bible,  or  the  Spirit  of  a  Methodist  camp- 
meeting?  But,  Paul  adds,  "For  God  is  aot  the  au- 
thor of  confusion,  but  of  peace,  as  in  all  the  ehurche.;' 
of  the  Saints.  Let  your  women  keep  silence  in  the 
churches;  for  it  is  not  permitted  unto  them  to  speak." 
1  Cor.  14:  31,  34.  I'l  God  is  not  the  author  of  confu- 
sion, he  is  not  the  author  of  Methodism,  of  Methodist 
meetings,  nor  of  Methodist  conversions  :  for  they  not 
only  confuse  all  in  their  meetings,  but  frequently  an 
entire  neighborhood.  How  often  are  Methodists  heard, 
not  only  in  the  meeting  house,  but  going  from  it  to 
their  homes,  hallowing  "  glory,"  "  salvatiQn,"  "salva- 
tion full  and  fcee,^^  as  loud  as  they  can  scream;  and 
that  too,  at  the  hour  of  midnight,  while  all  peaceabk- 
people  are  in  bed.  "In  the  churches  of  the  Saints,'' 
Paul  says,  "women  are  to  keep  silence  ;  for  they  ar€^ 
not  permitted  to  speak  ;"  but  under  the  influence  m 
the  spirit  of  Methodism  they  do  not  keep  silence,  and 
are  permitted  to  speak,  to  shout,  to  scream,  to  faint 
and  fall  prostrate  on  the  floor,  rise,  shout,  faint  and 
lall  agian ;  while  the  young  and  modest  are  disgust- 
ed at  religion,  as  see  in  them,  the  scoffing  infiilel  i^^ 
left  tO'  make  their  disgraceful  conduct  his  eKcuse  for 
treating  with  contempt  ihe  name  and  authority  ol 
Jesus  Christ.  How  can, things  which  are  so  contrary 
to  every  thing  the  Spirit  of  God  has  ever  taught,  be 
caused  by  a  direct  and  imniediate  impul-e  of  the 
Spirit?  What  a  vast  difFerence  there  is  between  the 
teaching  of  God's  Spirit,  and  the  teaching  of  the  Spir- 
it of  Methodism.  For  example  :  The  Spirit  of  God' 
says,  in  the  New  Testament:;  "Let  one  speak  at  a. 
time,  that  the  rest  may  hear,,  and  learn."  Methodist 
.spirit :  "  Let  us  all  pray,,  all  speak,  and  aM  .shorn  m' 
once;'-  so  that  no  oae^  can  hear,  and  no  one  can  learn. 
God's  Spirit :    ''The  spirit;  of  the  pro.pk^t  In  subject  ti* 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  249 

tlic  prophet."  Methodist  spirit :  '•  The  operations  of 
the  Spirit  are  direct  and  immediate,  and  the  people 
are  so  comp'etely  under  its  intiaences,  that  they  can- 
not help  shouting  and  screaming  in  the  most  perlect 
confusion."  God  s  Spirit :  "  God  is  not  the  author  of 
confusion,  but  of  peace."  Methodist  spirit :  '-  God  is 
the  author  ot'confudon,  as  vvell  as  of  peace  ;  and  when- 
ever he  gives pac^  to  the  soul,  he  always  does  it  in  the 
greatest  confusion."  God's  Spirit :  "  Let  your  women 
keep  silence  in  the  churches."  Methodist  spirit :  "  Let 
the  women  all  speak  in  the  churches.  Let  tht^m  shout, 
and  pray,  and  we  will  have  the  blessing."  God's 
Spirit :  "  ^yomen  are  not  permitted  to  speak  in  the 
churches."  Methodist  Spirit:  '-Women  are  pre- 
mitted  to  speak  in  the  church ;  for  the  irresistible  in- 
fluences of  the  spirit  compel  them  to  speak,  to  shout, 
and  to  make  the  most  perfect  confusion  of  all  our 
meetings  ;  and  we  know  it  is  right,  for  the  more  confu- 
sion Vv'e  have,  the  happicj-  ice  fed.  God's  Spirit  :  '•  Let 
all  things  be  done  dcc:-nthj,  and  in  onkr^  Methodist 
spirit :  '•  A^  for  decency,  we  care  but  little  about  it, 
and  as  for  ordei\  we  want  none  ;  all  we  want  is  tho 
blessing,  and  a  good  shout  in  the  camp." 

Having  shown  that  the  bible,  reason  and  common 
sense  are  against  the  positions  of  Mr.  Terrell,  I  have 
now  some  objections  to  the  doctrince  of  his  proposition 
to  oilef .     And  the  first  is  : 

\.  That  it  makes  us  all  depend,  not  upon  the  word 
of  God,  but  upon  our  f(  clinics — the  blind  inifyuhes  of  our 
hearts  alone-  lor  the  evidence  of  our  pardon.  The 
promises  of  God  are  not  regarded  by  the  believers  in  a 
new  and  immediate  revelation  distinct  from  the  bible. 
The  bible,  and  every  thing  else,  must  be  made  to  bend 
and  b^jw  to  ike  Us^kt  within.  Men  of  all  parties  fuel 
that  they  are  right  ;  for  it  is  impossible  for  their  feel- 
ings to  dijf'tr  from  tkcir  faith.  Now,  i[  feeling  is  asj 
evidence  to  one  of  the  truth  of  his  doctrine,  and  the 
correctness  of  his  positions,  it  is  an  evidence  to  ail,  of 


250  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

all  parties,  of  the  same  things.     Well  might  Solomon 
have  said  :  •'  He  that  trusletk  in  his  men  heart  is  a  fool.'^ 

2.  The  doctrine  of  an  immediate  revelation  Icail? 
men  to  disregard  the  authority  of  God,  and  to  disobey 
his  commandment.  If  you  tell  a  Methodist  that  Jesus 
shys,  "  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be 
saved,"  or  pardoned  of  all  his  sins,  he  will  tell  you  that 
he  cares  nothing  about  that,  for  he  received  pardon 
without  baptism,  or  any  other  "bodily  act."  But,  if 
3'ou  ask  liim  how  he  knows  he  was  pardoned?  he  will 
tell  you  he  knows  it  by  the  way  he  fcis — that  the  "  Ho- 
ly Ghost  has  revealed  it  in  his  soul."  Thus  you  see, 
that  a  belief  in  an  immediate  revelation  sets  aside  the 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  leads  men  to  disobey  his 
commandments,  and  to  trust  in  their  own  hearts  in 
pVeference  to  his  promises.  The  man  of  God,  believes 
all  that  God  says,  obeys  all  he  commands,  and  trusts  in 
him  for  all  he  has  proniised.  He  is,  then,  a  happy  man'. 
His  feelings  arise  Irom  his  faith,  and  his  faith  rests  not 
upon  his  feelings,  as  do  the  faith  of  Methodists,  but  up- 
on the  promises  of  the  Lord.  He  believed,  feels,  and 
knows  he  is  pardoned,  because  the  God  of  heaven  who 
cannot  lie  tells  him  he  is  ;  but  does  not,  and  cannot 
think,  or  imat^inc  himself  pardoned,  because  he  feels  so 
and  so. 

3.  My  third  objection  is,  That  belief  in  an  immediate 
revelation  leads  men  to  substitute,  defend,  and  obey 
the  doctrines  and  commandments  of  men,  instead  of 
the  commandments  of  God.  If  you  ask  a  Methodist 
what  authority  he  has  for  the  mourner's  bench  ?  ho 
wall  tell  you  that  God  has  owned  and  blessed  it  in  the 
conversions  of  thousands.  But,  how  do  you  know,  that 
(lod  has  owned  and  blessed  it?  Why,  he  will  say,  T 
was  pardoned  there  myself,  and  I  have  seen  hundreds 
pardoned  at  it  just  as  1  was.  But,  how  do  you  know 
that  you  or  any  one  else  was  pardoned  at  it?  Why  I 
know,  because  \  fed  it,  and  because  the  "  Holy  Ghost 
has  revealed  it  in  my  soul."     But  what  authority  hav(^ 


AXD  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  251 

you  for  your  class-meeting,  and  your  band  society  ? — 
Why,  he  will  say,  these  are  the  best  meetings  in  the 
world.  But,  how  do  you  know  that  they  are  the  best 
meetirjgs  in  the  world  ?  Why  I  know  it,  because  I 
have  been  made  iofcl  happier  in  these  meetings,  than 
in  any  other  meetings. 

Thus  you  see,  my  tViends,  that  the  mourner's  bench, 
the  class-meeting,  and  the  band  society,  are  the  com- 
mandments of  Mr.  Terrell's  immediate  revelation. — 
Thus  you  see,  that  a  belief  in  immediate  revelations 
leadsmen  to  substitute, del"end,  rejoice  in,  and  obey  the 
doctrines  and  commandments  of  men,  instead  of  the 
commandments  of  God,  because  they  make  them  fed 
irood.  This  immediate  revelation  teaches  a  Shaker  to 
sing  ludicrous  songs,  dunce,  fall  upon  his  face,  lick  the 
law  of  Mothci  Ann  off  of  the  floor ^  shake  the  devil  of, 
and  kick  him  out  of  the  door.  It  teaches  a  Quaker  to 
behave  himself  decently,  and  say  nothing  till  the  Spirit 
moves  him.  But  it  teaches  a  rJethodist  to  come  to 
the  mourner's  bench,  go  to  his  class  meeting,  and  the 
meeting  of  the  band,  and  there  to  shout,  scream,  and 
yell  like  the  Indians  of  the  North  West.  We  have  as 
much  reason  to  believe  the  revelations  of  Quakers  and 
Shakers,  as  we  have  to  believe  those  of  the  Methodists. 

4.  My  fourth  objection  is,  That  a  belief  in  immedi- 
ate revelations  leads  to  irtfidcUtij .  It  is  a  notorious 
fact,  that  Methodists,  Shakers,  and  Quakers,  reject,  and 
explain  away  every  part  of  the  bible  which  opposes 
their  peculiar  notions.  That  this  is  true,  I  will  prove 
by  Mr.  Terrell.  He  does  not  believe  the  language  of 
ihe  Lord  Jesus  :  "  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized, 
shall  be  saved."  Nor  does  he  believe  the  language  of 
Peter  :  "Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in 
the  name  of  Je.sus  Christ,  jor  rtmlssion  of  sins  "  Nor 
does  he  believe  the  passage:  "Arise,  and  be  baptized, 
and  wash,  aicay  thy  sins.^^  Nor  does  he  beli^eve  that, 
"  Christ  gave  himself  for  the  church,  that  he  might  san- 
tify,  and  cleanse  it  by  the    icashing  of  water,  and  the 


^52  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

w^ord."  Nor  does  he  believe  that,  "  Baptism  -nox  saves 
us,  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  These  are 
parts  of  tlie  word  of  God  that  he  does  not,  and  dare* 
not  beheve.  (Turning  to  Mr.  Terrell,  Mr.  P.  said,) — 
1  dare  you,  sir,  to  confess  before  this  audience,  that  you 
believe  these  quotations  from  the  word  of  God.  He 
dare  not  confess  that  he  believes  them  ;  for  he  knows, 
that  in  so  doing,  he  would  renounce  the  principles  of 
his  party,  and  that  his  party  would  denounce  him.  If 
he  will  confess  that  he  believes  all  the  bible,  it  will 
save  him  the  trouble  of  saying  again,  that  he  has  "  tri- 
umphantly proved  justification  by  faith  only."  If  1 
w^ere  the  advocate  of  a  system  which  would  not  allow 
of  my  confessing  any  where  and  every  where  that  I  be- 
lieved the  bible,  and  the  whole  bible,  I  would  throw  it 
down,  as  a  thing  unworthy  of  a  place  in  the  head  or 
heart  of  an  honest  man. 

1  must  now'  notice  some  few  items  in  the  last  speech 
of  my  friend.  He  quoted  a  passage  in  the  2d  chapter 
of  1.  Cor.  "V/e  have  received  the  Spirit  Avhich  is  of 
God;  that  we  might  know  the  things  that  are  freely  giv- 
en us  of  God."  (Now  mark)  "which  things  we  also 
^•peak,  not  in  the  icords  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth, 
but  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth;"  "expressing  spi- 
ritual things  in  spiritual  words."  These  things,  then, 
which  we  freely  receive  are  spoken  by  the  Apostles, 
and  came  to  us  through  the  medium  of  the  words  of  the 
Spirit,  and  not  immediately,  as  Mr.  Terrell  supposes. 

In  his  first  speech  he  tells  you,  that  the  evidence  of 
pardon  is  not  furnished  in  the  Bible,  but  in  his  last  he 
said, '-We  have  aright  to  bring  our  feelings  to  the 
word  of  God  and  by  it  prove  that  they  are  from  God." 
That  is,  the  Bible  does  not  furnish  any  evidence,  but 
still  we  have  a  right  to  come  for  the  evidence  where  the 
evidence  is  not.  If  the  Bible  does  not  furnish  any  evi- 
dence what  right  have  we  to  come  for  evidence  where 
evidence  is  not  furnished? 

In  his  first  speech  he  told  you,  that  pardon  does  not 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  25tf 

tiake  place  in  u^,  but  inthemind  of  Gol — it  is  something 
done  for  us  in  heaven.  This  I  believe  but  it  is  not  the 
belief  of  Mr.  Terrell  and  his  party.  When  a  man  v^'ho 
is  condemned  by  the  laws  of  his  country,  is  pardoned 
by  the  Governor  of  the  State,  he  cannot  know  that  he 
is  pardoned  till  the  Governor  tells  him  so  in  words;  so 
we  when  we  are  pardoned  by  the  Governor  of  the 
world,  we  cannot  know  that  we  are  pardoned  tillhe  tells 
us  in  words  that  we  are.  Jn  his  last,  he  said,  "If  a  man 
pays  me  for  labor,  1  don't  know  that  I  have  the  money 
because  he  tells  me  so,  but  because  Ifclit  inmyhand)'^ 
thus  making  pardon  not  something  done /or  m5  in  heaven 
but  something  done  in  its,  and  received  into  us,  as  we 
receive  money  into  our  hands  for  labor.  Consistent 
disputant!  There  is  a  maral  charge  in  every  believer; 
but  this  change  is  not  pardon, but  a  p^ercqui.^i'e,  to  par- 
don. We  know  what  it  done  in  us  by  our  feelings,  and 
we  know  what  is  done  for  us  in  licavcn,  not  by  our  feel- 
ings, but  by  the  word  of  God.  God  pardons  usm  hea- 
ven, but  we  do  not,  and  cannot  know  that  we  are  par- 
doned, till  he  tells  in  his  word  that  we  are. 

Abraham  had  testimony  he  says,  that  the  nations 
would  be  blessed  in  him,  but  not  that  they  had  been 
blessed.  If  he  had  testimony  before  they  v/ere  blessed, 
certainly  the  testimony  existed  before  the  fact.  The 
word  of  God  said, Z)ffo/c  the  nations  were  blessed  in 
Abraham,  "in  thee  they  shallhe  blessed;"  and  after  they 
were  blessed,  the  same  word  says,  in  Abraham  they  are 
blessed.  We  learn  all  we  know  about  it  from  the  word 
of  God.  So  the  word  of  God  says  to  us,  believe  and 
(bey,  and  you  shall  be  saved  or  pardoned,  and  after  we 
believe  and  obey,  the  same  w^ord  says;  "When  you 
obeyed  from  the  heart,  you  were  made  free  from  sin;" 
and  that  our  souls  were  purified  in  obedience — H71  obeying 
the  truth.'"     Rom.  6:  18     Peter  1:  22. 

Now,  unless  the  word  of  God  is  false,  we  know  by  it 
that  we  are  pardoned.  Mr.  Terrell  talks  about  pardon 
by  faith  only,  and  yet,  has  no  more  faith  in  the  positive 


254  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

statements  of  the  word  of  God  than  to  say  they  furnish 
no  evidence  of  pardon.  But  I  must  notice  the  passage 
in  the  eighth  of  Romans;  --The  Spirit  itself  beareth  wit- 
ness wilk  our  Spirit  that  we  are  the  children  of  God."' 
I  remark  upon  this  first;  The  controversy  is  not  whether 
the  Spirit  bears  witness,  but  kuw  it  bears  witness — is 
the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  immediate,  o\  through  some 
medium?  Second:  According  to  the  common  version 
there  are  two  witnesses;  "the  Spirit  bears  witness  wjtk 
our  vSpirit.  Now,  if  you  say,  that  your  /ef/mo-5  are  the 
testimony  of  God's  Spirit,  where  will  you  find  the  testi- 
mony of  your  own  Spirit?  Third:  This  verse  says  not 
one  word  about  a  new  revelation,  direct  or  immediate 
testimony;  nor  one  word  about  when,  or  how  we  are  par- 
doned; it  only  teaches  that  the  Spirit  of  God  bears  wit- 
ness, and  this  we  all  believe.  But  how  does  it  bear 
witness  is  the  question.  God  commands  us  to  believe, 
repent,  and  be  be  baptized  for  remission  of  sins;  and 
to  every  one  who  obeys  the  Spirit  says,  "When  you  o- 
beyed  irom  the  he  heart,  you  were  made  free  from  .vi??." 
What  can  be  stronger  evidence  than  this?  Let  Mr. 
Terrell  show  language  as  plain  in  his  new  revelation  if 
he  can. 

Time  expired. 

MP..  Terrell's  closlng  speech--4th  prop. 
Christian  Friends; 

The  gentleman  wishes  me  to  pay  some  attention  to 
his  arg'uments.  You,  no  doubt,  as  well  as  myself, 
would  ask  the  question:  Where  are  his  arguments? — 
Does  he  call  what  he  has  said  about  mourner's  benches 
and  class-meetings,  arguments?  If  he  does  not  I  am 
unable  to  tell  where  he  will  find  his  arguments.  But 
I  would  inform  him  once  for  all  that  I  am  not  here  to 
defend  the  mourner's-bench  nor  the  class-meeting.  If 
that  was  the  question  I  would  easily  defend  our  practice 
in  these  respects,  but  that  is  not  the  question  in  debate. 
We  believe  that  Christians  may  shout,  for  Isaiah,  say  s, 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  255 

^'Ciy  outandahout,"  but  I  am  not  to  consume  time,  in 
replying  to  his  irrelivant  matter.  1  would  observe,  in 
passing,  that  we  do  not  beheve  that  shouting  is  an 
evidence  of  pardon.  This  is  one  of  Mr.  Pritchard's 
misrepresentations. 

He  says  he  would  not  debate  my  first  proposition^ 
but  every  word  that  was  in  that  is  in  this.  He  has 
tiierefore  done  the  same  in  debating  this,  as  if  he  had 
debated  the  first  proposition.  I  look  upon  what  he 
said  on  this  point  as  an  apology  for  his  defeat. 

Mr.  Pritchard  refers  to  a  man  condemned  and  hung. 
to  prove  that  evidence  can  exist  before  the  fact  to  be  be- 
lieved exists;  but  here  he  failed,  for  the  evidence  that 
the  man  is  hung  is  not  that  he  has  committed  the  mur- 
der, for  there  are  many  that  commit  murder  who  are 
not  hung.  This  argument  he  has  not  and  cannot  touch. 
No  evidence  of  any  fact  can  exist  before  the  fact  itself 
exists.  One  cannot  exist  without  the  other.  When  a 
man  is  pardoned  he  is  a  Christian.  That  he  is  pardon- 
ed is  a  fact,  and  he  receives  the  evidence  of  it  because 
it  is  a  fact,  and  after  it  is  a  fact,  and  cannot  receive  the 
evidence  before  he  is  pardoned.  This  argument  has 
proven  triumphant,  and  bids  defiance  to  the  gentleman's 
best  etforts. 

While  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  I  called  baptism 
the  seal  of  the  covenant,  but  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  seal 
of  pardon.  This  explains  Ephesians  1:  13,  upon  which 
the  gentleman  made  such  a  display  in  his  last  speech. 
The  covenant  has  its  seal  and  pardon  has  its  seal,  and 
if  the  gentleman  had  made    himself  acquainted  with 
this  fact,  it  would  have  saved  him  of  much  trouble. — 
Baptism  is  one  seal,  or  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  other  seal,  or  the  seal  of  .pardon. 
The  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit  spoken   of  by    the 
apostle,  was  a  means,  a  part,  or  evidence  of  the  instru- 
mentality in  conversion  and  sanctification;  butthewit- 
ness  of  the  Spirit  is  God  s  Spirit  bearing  witness  with 
our  Spirit  that  we  are  the  children   of  God.     There 


S56  DEBATE  OK  BAPTISM 

must  be  a  tree  before  there  can  be  a  fruit,  so  there  must; 
be  a  pardon  before  there  can  be  the  evidence  of  par* 
don. 

In  regard  to  what  he  saj^s  about  my  confusion,  I  have 
but  little  to  say.  1  leave  it  with  this  large  and  intelli- 
gent audience  to  say  how  much  I  have  been  confused. 
i  feel  no  uneasiness  on  that  head. 

The  gentleman  tells  us  that  he  was  once  a  Metho- 
dist. I  have  long  known  that  when  any  one  turns  a- 
gainst  a  church  to  which  he  has  once  belonged,  he  will 
do  every  thing  in  his  power  against  it.  Such  persons 
usually  employ  every  means  both  fair  and  unfair  against 
the  church  of  which  they  formerly  were  members. — 
Such  seems  to  be  the  case  with  Mr.  Pritchard.  He 
glories  in  burling  his  fiercest  darts  at  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  because  he  once  belonged  to  it. 

I  do  not  know  that  there  was  any  thing  more  in 
the  gentleman's  last  speech  demanding  attention; 
.Ind  1  shall  therfore  proceed  on  to  recapitulate  my  ar- 
guments. 

]  My  first  position  was  that  pardon  is  not  done  in  man, 
ut  it  is  done  in  heaven  for  him:  which  Mr.  Pritchard 
as  not  denied;  and  that  the  evidence  of  pardon  must 
be  from  heaven.  This  no  one  can  deny  with  any  de- 
gree of  propriety.  It  is  also  a  principle  which  1  have 
laid  down  and  argued  from,  that  the  evidence  of  no 
fact  can  possibly  exist  before  the  fact  itself  exists. — • 
This  Mr.  Pritchard  has  tried  hard  to  get  round,  but  from 
it  he  has  not  and  cannot  escape.  TvJy  argument  then, 
is  this:  Pardon  is  an  act  of  God,  done  in  heaven;  there- 
fore the  testim.ony  of  his  having  performed  that  act 
must  be  from  heaven;  and  as  it  is  a  fact  that  the  evi- 
dence of  any  act  cannot  exist  before  the  act  is  per- 
formed, the  evidence  of  the  pardon  of  sin  cannot  be  in 
the  bible.  This  cut  my  friend  off  at  once  from  his  bi- 
ble argument.  Hence  ne  has  tried  hard  to  get  over 
this  difficulty,  but  he  has  not  succeeded,  and,  as  I  think 
no  one  ever  can  succeed  who  occupies  his  position. 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  257 

God  pardons  a  man  first  and  then,  gives  him  the  evi- 
•dence  of  it.  This  is  certainly  the  case,  for  it  could  not 
be  that  he  would  give  the  evidence  first  and  then  par- 
don him.  This  would  be  preposterous.  It  would  be 
proving  a  thing  before  it  was  true.  This  placed  Mr. 
Pritchard  in  a  singular  difficulty,  and  he  felt  sensible 
that  he  must  work  his  way  out,  or  give  up  the  argument 
at  the  beginning.  This  accounts  for  his  great  efforts  on 
this  point;  but  for  him  there  was  no  escape.  Here  1 
planted  down  my  stake,  and  here  I  still  stand,  and  still 
intend  to  stand. 

My  next  argument  was  founded  on  the  plain  word 
of  scripture.  "Because  ye  are  sons,  he  hath  sent  forth 
the  Spirit  of  his  son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba, 
Father."  None  are  sons  but  those  who  are  pardoned; 
and  because  they  are  sons  or  as  an  evidence  that  they 
are  sons,  he  has  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into 
their  hearts.  This  is  a  plain  and  unanswerable  argu- 
ment which  Mr.  Pritchard  has  been  unable  to  meet. 

I  then  quoted  the  language  of  St.  Paul,  Eph.  1:  IS; 
^'In  whom  ye  also  trusted  after  that  ye  heard  the  v.^ord 
of  truth  the  gospel,  of  your  salvation,  in  whom  also, 
after  that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  that 
Koly  Spirit  of  promise."  This  passage  is  ex- 
actly in  point.  Here  is  the  seal  of  pardon  or  the  evi- 
dence of  pardon.  The  gentleman  need  not  smile,  for 
1  did  not  say  that  baptism  was  the  seal  of  pardon,  but 
the  uml  of  the  covenant.  But  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  seal 
of  pardon.  This  passage  is  quite  to  the  point,  and 
there  is  no  getting  over  it. 

Again  "the  Spirit  bears  witness  w^ith  our  Spirit  that 
we  are  the  children  of  God."  This  is  almost  the  lan- 
guage of  my  proposition,  declaring,  in  so  many  words, 
that  the  Spirit  bears  witness  with  our  Spirit  that  we  are 
the  children  of  God.  You  see  here  that  we  have  scrip- 
ture for  our  faith,  but  the  gentleman  only  has  Mr. 
Campbell  for  his  faith.  What  is  Mr.  Campbell  v/hen 
compared  to  the  New  Testament  writers?    He  is  a  mer€> 

Q 


255  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

pigma.  We  want  the  witness  of  the  Holy  vSpirit  and 
not  the  witness  from  Bethany.  We  want  scripture  au- 
thority, not  the  authority  of  A.  Campbell. 

The  witness  of  the  Spirit  is  in  us  and  we  feel  it  and 
know  it  for  ourselves.  I  expect  I  could  get  one  hundred 
persons  in  this  assembly,  were  I  to  call  on  them  to  tes- 
tify that  the  Vv'itness  of  the  Spirit,  bearing  witness  with 
their  spirits  that  they  are  the  children  of  God.  Yes, 
thank  God,  there  are  more  than  one  hundred,  I  suppose, 
who  w^ould  testify,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  bears  record 
with  their  spirit  that  they  are  the  children  of  God.  I 
might  tell  the  young  man,  if  he  has  it  not,  to  go  to  the 
closet,  and  there  earnestly  seek  it.  It  is  as  the  well  of 
the  water  of  life,  and  waters  and  nourishes  the  soul. 

Mr.  Can^ipbell  may  say  that  it  is  the  word — that  if 
we  obey  the  word  we  imagine  our  sins  are  pardoned. 
Is  it  all  imagination?  No,  blessed  be  God,  it  cannot  be. 
There  is  a  reality  in  it.  But  the  christian  may  expect 
hard  names,  from  those  ignorant  of  this  blessed  witness: 
but  if  they  call  the  Master  of  the  house  Beelzebub, 
what  may  not  we  bis  followers  expect? 

I  could  offer  many  more  arguments,  but  what  I  have 
offered,  I  consider  sufficient;  and,  although  my  time  is 
not  out,  I  shall  come  to  a  close,  and  leave  the  question 
with  this  large  and  intelligent  audience.  My  prayer 
is  that  good  may  result  from  our  discussion,  and  that 
truth  may  prevail. 

Gentleman  moderators  and  christian  friends,  you  all 
have  my  thanks  for  your  attention,  and  the   many   to- 
kens of  kindness  I  have  received  while  with  you. 
Time  expired. 

MR.  PBITCHARD's  closing  REPLY 4tH  PROP. 

Gentlemen  Moderators: 

Our  discussion  is  about  to  close  ;  and  if  it  was  not 
for  some  things  in  the  last  speech  of  Mr.  Terrell,  I  could 
not  say  any  thing  more  to  add  to  his  defeat  and  morti- 
fication. I  am  now  satisfied,  that  it  was  the  want  of 
mo'her    wit,  and  of  knowledge   of  the  subject,   that 


AST)  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  259 

caused  him  to  affirm  what  he  has  to-day. 

He  has  had  more  to  say  about  Bro.  Campbell  to-day, 
than  he  has  about  his  new  revelation.  I  suppose  the 
reason  is,  because  it  is  easier  for  a  Methodist  Circuit- 
eer  to  itlande7'Bro.  Campbell,  than  to  prove  Methodism. 
He  has  given  you  the  views  of  Bro.  Campbell  on  bap- 
tism, on  creeds,  and  on  the  Holy  Spirit.  Well,  from 
what  I  have  heard  from  him  during  this  debate,  I  am 
satisfied  that  Mr.  Terrell  cannot  give  the  views  of  Bro. 
Campbell,  for  he  is  incapable  of  understanding  his  wri- 
tings. Bro.  Campbell  believes,  he  says,  that  all  the 
Spirit  there  is  among  Christians  is  the  written  word. — 
He  professes  to  be  well  acquainted  with  the  writings 
of  Bro.  Campbell.  Now  hear  Bro.  Campbell,  and  see 
if  Mr.  Terrell  can  understand  his  writings.  He  says  : 
■•'  In  the  kingdom  into  which  we  are  born  of  water,  the 
Holi/  Spirit  is  as  the  atmosphrrrc  in  the  kingdom  of  nature 
— we  incan  that  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are 
as  necessary  to  the  new  life,  as  the  atmosphere  is  to  our 
animal  life,  in  the  kingdom  of  nature."  C.  System, 
p.  267. 

Now,  how  can  a  man  say,  in  view  of  language  Hke 
this,  that  Bro.  Campbell  believes  that  all  the  Spirit 
there  is  among  Christians  is  the  word  ?  The  Spirit  of 
God  is  the  almosphere  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  very 
air  \NQ  breathe,  he  says,  and  is  as  necessary  to  the  new 
life,  as  the  atmosphere  in  nature  is  to  our  animal  life. 
He  knows  his  statement  to  be  a  graceless  slander  up- 
on the  sentiments  of  that  great  and  good  man. 

Presbyterians,  he  says,  agree  with  him,  that  these 
•'  irregular  heats"  of  the  mourner's  bench  are  caused 
by  an  immediate  impulse  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hear 
the  language  of  a  Presbyterian  : 

"It  is  also  worthy  of  consideration,"  says  Professor 
Hodge,  "that  these  bodily  affections  are  of  frequent 
occurrence  at  the  present  day  among  those  who  con- 
tinue to  desire  and  encourage  them.  It  appears,  then, 
that  these  nervous  agitations  are  of  frequent  ocGur- 
rence  in  all  times  of  strong  excitement;  it  matters  lit' 


260  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

tie  whether  the  excitement  arise  from  superstition,  fan- 
aticism,  or  the  preaching  oT  the  truth.  If  the  imagin- 
ation be  stroneiy  aifected,  the  nervous  system  is  very 
apt  to  be  deranged,  and  outcries,  faintings,  convul- 
sions, and  other  hysterical  symptoms  are  the  conse- 
quence. That  these  effects  are  of  the  same  nature, 
whatever  may  be  the  remote  cause,  is  plain,  because 
the  phenomena  are  the  same ;  the  apparent  circum- 
stances of  theii;  origin  the  same  ;  they  all  have  the 
same  infectiour^  nature,  and  are  all  cur^d  by  the  same 
means.  They  are,  therefore,  but  different  forms  of  the 
same  disease  ;  and  whether  they  occur  in  a  convent  or 
camp-meeting,  they  are  no  more  a  token  of  the  divine 
power  than  hysteria  or  epilepsy."  Life  of  Stone,  p.  366. 

So  it  seems,  Presbyterians  believe  that  these  nervous 
agitations,  outcries,  faintings,  and  convulsions  of  Meth- 
odist camp-meetings,  and  hysteria  and  epilepsy,  "  are 
but  different  forms  of  the  same  disease  ;"  and  that  hys- 
teria and  epilepsy  are  as  much  a  token  of  divine  pow- 
er, and  are  as  much  proof  of  an  immediate  revelation, 
as  these  "  irregular  and  disgraceful  heats"  among 
Methodists.  There  is  no  lover  of  good  society — no 
man  who  feels  the  importance  of  the  command  of  Al- 
mighty God,  "  Let  every  thing  be  done  decently^  and  in 
order,"  who  can  believe  in,  or  be  the  advocate  of  these 
hysterical  symptoms  which  are  so  directly  opposed  to 
every  thing  the  Spirit  has  taught  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. 

I  stated  that  these  nervous  agitations,  faintings  and 
falUngs,  were  not  confined  to  the  religious,  for  among 
the  Romans,  in  times  of  political  excitement,  these 
things  appeared;  and  so  alarming  were  they  in  their 
nature,  that  the  Romans  made  a  law  to  cure  them, 
which  was,  that  the  people  should  go  home,  and  stay 
there,  till  the  excitement  was  over.  To  this  Mr.  Ter- 
rell replied,  that  he  knew  the  Romans  made  many  laws 
against  Christians.  Now,  this  nervous  disease  among 
the  Romans,  w^hich  is  now  witnessed  among  Method- 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  261 

ists,  was  not  caused  by  religious,  but  by  political  ex- 
citement ;  those  who  were  affected  with  it  were  not 
Christians,  but  political  enthusiasts  ;  and  the  law  was 
not  made  against  Christians,  or  any  body  else,  but  as 
a  cure  for  the  disease — that  the  people  should  go  home 
till  the  excitement  which  caused  the  disease  had  sub- 
sided. These  "  irregular  heats'  among  the  Romans, 
caused  by  political  excitement,  and  the  bodily  agita- 
tions among  Methodists,  caused  by  religious  excite- 
ment, are  identically  the  same,  which  puts  it  beyond 
doubt,  that  they  are  the  legitimate  offspring  of  excite- 
ment, and  not  of  divine  favor.  Nor  does  the  fact  that 
undoubted  Christians  are  sometimes  afflicted  with  these 
irregularities  prove  that  they  are  from  God,  more  than 
does  the  fact  that  undoubted  Christians  are  sometimes 
afflicted  with  Ague  prove  that  it  is  caused  by  a  direct 
impulse  of  the  Holy  vSpirit 

'i'he  gentleman  told  you  that  I  could  not  say  that 
my  body  was  washed  in  pure  water.  I  would  be 
ashamed  to  give  the  lie  to  common  sense  by  saying  I 
have  been  "  buried  in  baptism,"  and  my  "  body  washed 
in  pure  water,*'  if  1  had  only  had  a  few  drops  sprinkled 
on  my  face. 

The  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  says,  is  an  in- 
strumentality of  our  salvation.  If  so,  salvation  is  not 
by  faith  only,  Mr.  Terrell,  and  you  were  mistaken  when 
you  said,  "  1  have  triumphantly  proved  that  we  are 
saved  by  faith  only."  All  men  will  sometimes  own 
the  truth. 

The  Holy  Spirit,  he  says,  bears  testimony  through 
miracles.  If  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  through  the 
medium  of  miracles,  it  is  not  immediate,  Mr.  Terrell. 
Truly  is  Mr.  Terrell  against  himself 

But,  the  gentleman  having  finished  his  arguments,  he 
had  to  turn  aside,  in  his  usual  slanderous  style,  to  tell 
you  that  1  was  once  a  Methodist,  and  that  he  never 
knew  an  instance  of  a  man  turning  his  back  upon  the 
people  he  first  joined,  but  what  he  became  one  of  the 


2G2 


DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 


bitterest  persecuters  and  vilest  of  slanderers  in  the 
land.  No,  he  never  knew  an  instance,  he  says,  buf 
what  the  man  who  turned  became  a  bitter  persecuter, 
and  the  vilest  of  slanderers.  Now,  Mr.  Terrell  either 
told  the  truth,  or  he  did  not  tell  the  truth.  If  he  told 
the  truth,  then  he  never  knew  one  but  what  lie,  perse- 
cute and  slander  ;  but  if  he  did  not  tell  the  truth,  he  is 
guilt}^  of  a  wilful  and  hare-faced  falsehood  before  this 
large  assembly.  Well,  Mr!  Terrell  himself  was  once  a 
member  of  the  Baptist  church,  but  he  has  long  since 
"  turned  his  back  upon  the  people  he  first  joined,"  and 
is  now  a  Methodist ;  so  as  he  has  never  known  one  but 
would  persecute  and  slander,  we  are  are  authorized  by 
him  to^  tell  the  world,  and  the  whole  world,  that  he  is 
one  of  the  bitterest  persecuters,  and  the  vilest  of  slan- 
derers in  the  land.  If  he  did  not  tell  the  truth,  he  is 
guilty  of  persecuting  and  slandering  those  who  have 
changed  their  religious  sentiments;  and  if  he  did  tell 
the  truth,  he  is  a  persecuting,  slandering  fellow;  so, 
either  way,  he  is  a  vile  slanderer.  The  difference  be- 
tween Mr.  Terrell  and  myself  is,  I  was,  while  a  boy,  a 
member  of  the  Methodist  church,  but,  when  I  became 
a  man,  1  left  it  and  joined  the  Christian  church.  Mr. 
Terrell  was  once  a  member  of  a  Christian  church,  but 
became  an  apostate,  and  joined  the  Methodists.  This, 
before  heaven  and  earth,  is  the  difference  between  us. 
I  have  known  hundreds  who  have  changed  their  religi- 
ous faith,  who  would  neither  lie,  persecute,  nor  slan- 
der:  and  there  are  many  present  now,  of  our  most  re- 
spectable citizens,  who  are  among  the  number. 

The  gentleman,  in  the  kindness  and  benevolence  of 
his  pious  soul,  exhorted  me  to  seek  for  the  Testimony 
of  the  Spirit.  1  have  sought  for  it  and  found  it  long 
since.  1  tiiink,  however,  that  such  an  exhortation 
comes  with  an  iJl  grace  from  a  man  who  has  proved 
himself  to  be  one  of  the  bitterest  persecuters,  and  one 
of  the  vilest  of  slanderers  in  the  land.  It  comes  with  a 
bad  countenance  from   a  man  who  has  not,  and  dare 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT,  203 

yit^t  confess  that  he  belkves  the  bible,  I  have  made  a 
3iumber  of  quotations  from  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit, 
and  dared  Mr.  Terrell  to  confess  that  he  believed  the 
testimony,  but  he  has  not,  he  will  not,  he  dare  Dot  say 
he  believes  it;  and  yet,  he  can  stand  up  here,  and  ex- 
hort me  to  seek  after  the  very  thing  he  does  not,  and 
dare  not  believe.  J  quoted  the  iangaage  of  Christ,  ''  Ho 
that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved  ;"  bnth'^ 
has  not,  and  dare  not  confess  that  he  believes  it.  1 
quoted  the  language  of  the  Spirit,  "  Repent,  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
for  remission  of  sins;"  but  he  would  not  confess  that  he 
'believed  it.  1  quoted  the  language  of  the  Spirit,  "  A- 
rise,  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins  ;"  but  I 
could  not  get  him  to  say  he  believed  it. 

(Here  the  Moderator  said — Is  not  that  nevv-  matter?) 

Mr.  Pritchard — Xo  sir.  I  introduced  it  in  my  last 
speech. 

(Moderator — 1  did  not  hear  it.) 

Mr.  Pritchard — I  do  not  suppose  you  did.  for  you 
were  absent  from  the  house  when  I  spoke  last.  I  re- 
aflirm,  then,  that  he  dare  not  say  he  believes  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Spirit.  I  also  asked  him,  if  he  believed 
the  language  of  Paul,  that  we  are  'sanctified,  and 
cleansed  by  the  washing  of  water,  and  the  word  ;"  but 
he  would  not  say  he  did.  I  also  asked  him  to  say, 
whether  he  believed  the  words  of  Peter,  "  Baptism 
now  saves  us?"  but  he  would  not  say  he  did.  1  now 
say  to  Mr.  Terrell,  that,  before  this  shall  go  to  the 
world,  and  prove  to  every  honest  mind  that  his  new 
and  immediate  revelation  has  made  him  an  Infidel,  he 
still  has  an  opportunity  of  making  the  good  confession 
that  he  believes  the  word  of  God, — I  mean  every  part 
of  it.  How  a  man  can  believe  one  part,  and  not  anoth- 
er, is  something  I  cannot  understand.  How  can  a  man 
who  dare  not  say  he  believes  the  word  of  God,  have 
the  audacity  to  stand  up  here,  and  exhort  me  to  seek 
loj"  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  ?     When  unbelievers  be- 


2Qi  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

come  exhorters,  their  feelings  must  be  mvfitL  Alas  for 
the  party  whose  advocates  do  not  believe,  and  dare  not 
believe  the  word  of  God. 

The  last  argument  of  the  gentleman  was,  that  he 
could  call  upon  one  hundred  in  this  audience  who 
could  testify  that  they  have  received  the  testimony  of 
the  Spirit.  I  must  add  a  little  to  this.  I  can  call  upon 
more  th-dn  Jive  hundred  in  this  audience  who  can  testi- 
fy that  all  Christians  receive  the  testimony  of  the  Spir- 
it. The  issue  between  us  is  not  whether  Christians  re- 
ceive the  testimony  of  the  Spirit,  but  whether  the  testi- 
mony ot  the  Spirit  is  iinmediate,  or  througk  some  medi- 
um— whether  the  Spirit  makes  a  new  revelation  tc« 
every  believer,  distinct  from  the  bible,  and  wholly  in- 
dependent of  it,  or  not.  But  what  he  intended  to  say 
was,  that  he  could  call  upon  osie  hundred  of  his  breth- 
ren who  would  testily  that  his  position  is  true. 
He  reminds  me  of  the  preacher  who  published  one  day 
that  on  a  certain  day  he  would  prove  to  every  body 
present  that  the  devd  is  a  liar.  Well,  on  the  day  ap- 
pointed, a  great  number  came  together  to  hear  the  sen- 
tence of  condemnation  pronounced  upon  "oV/  /SV/m."— 
The  preacher  arose  in  the  presence  of  the  assembly^ 
and  said;  '-The  devil  is  a  liar, he  always  was  a  liar,  ami 
1  can  prove  that  he  is  a  liar.  Then,  turnii^g  to  one  oi 
his  friends  he  said;  Is  he  not  a  liar,  Bro.  Jack?  Yes- 
said  Jack?  There, said  the  preacher,  1  told  you  I  would 
prove  it!  If  Bro.  Jack  had  only  been  present  while  Mr. 
Terrell  was  speaking,  how  easily  he  might  have  provetl 
his  proposition  by  him.  He  would  have  had  no- 
thing to  do  but  to  say.  Is  it  not  so,  Bro.  Jack?  and  the 
matter  would  have  been  settled  forever. 

Mr.  Terrell  was  quite  eloq^uent  while  speaking  on 
the  "  rivers  of  living  water,"  and  the  "well  of  water 
wliich  springs  up  into  everlasting  life."  A  speech  on 
the  nature  of  the  man  in  the  Moon,  or  one  on  the  lifn 
and  character  of  Joe  Smith,  would  have  been  as  mucli 
to  the  point.     He  has  beea  the  most  usxCortsimate  laaii 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  265 

ill  his  proof  I  ever  saw  ;  for  in  not  one  of  the  passages 
that  he  has  quoted  to  prove  his  proposition,  is  direct, 
immediate,  or  personal  testimony  mentioned.  How 
then  can  they  prove  his  proposition,  if  they  say  not  one 
word  about  it?  Nor  in  pardon  mentioned  in  one  of 
the  passages.  Neither  direct,  immediate,  personal, 
nor  pardon  is  found  in  oae  his  proof  texts.  He  knows 
that  he  was  solemnly  bound  by  his  proposition  to  prove, 
not  that  the  Spirit  bears  testimony  to  pardon,  for  this 
we  all  believe,  but  that  its  testimony  is  "  direct,  and 
immediate."  I  say  he  knuws  it;  for  in  one  of  his  let- 
ters to  me,  he  says :  "  You  know  that  the  issue  which 
1  make  with  you  is,  not  whether  the  Spirit  bears  te.sti' 
mony  in  the  head,  heart,  heels,  or  toes,  but  is  the  testi- 
mony direct,  and  immediate."'  This  was  then  the  real 
issue.  Now,  has  he  proved  his  position  ?  It  would  be 
an  insult  to  the  understanding  of  this  audience  to  tell 
them  what  they  so  well  know — viz  :  that  he  has  not. 

In  his  first  speech  he  quoted  two  or  three  passages, 
and  made  a  false  issue;  but  I  proved  by  him  that  we  be- 
lieved them  all,  and  that  Ac- and  his  jw^^/V/y  did  not.  He 
has  not  renounced  the  principles  of  his  party,  and  con- 
fessed his  faith  in  them  yet.  But  I  will  not,  I  cannot 
press  these  things  upon  him,  for  I  feel  for  him. 

The  Spirit  of  God  says  to  us  in  the  word  of  the  Lord 
"Beheve  and  obey,  and  you  shall  be  pardoned.  Now 
our  confidence  is  so  strong  in  the  words  of  the  Spirit, 
that  We  cannot  think  the  Spirit  would  tell  us  a  false- 
hood. Nor  can  we  be  dcccivad;  for  we  know  when  we 
beheve  and  we  know  when  we  obey.  These  are  mat- 
ters of  knowledge  with  us.  Now  unless  the  Spirit  tells 
us  what  is  positively  false,  all  who  believe  and  obey 
from  the  heart  are  pardoned,  and  justified  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord.  0,  how  little  like  Abraham  is  that  nar- 
row-minded soul,  who  says,  I  will  not  believe  till  1  re- 
ceive a  new  revelation  directly  and  immediately  from 
heaven.  But  the  Spirit  does  not  leave  us  with  the 
promise  that  we  shalt  be  pardoned,  h\xi  after  \\t  believe 


266  DEBATE  ON  BAPTISM 

and  obey,  as  it  commands  us,  it  tells  us  in  language  too 
plain  to  be  misunderstood,  that  "in  obedience  we  were 
MADE  FREE  FROM  SIN."  Where  is  the  man  who  believes 
the  Bible,  who  can  say  it  is  not  so?  Mr.  Terrell  has 
showed  us  nothing  in  hiancio  revelation  as  strong,  plain, 
and  clear  as  this.  Till  he  does  that,  we  will  be  conten- 
ted with  what  the  Lord  says,  believing  from  the  heart, 
we  do,  all  thinsfs  that  are  written  from  Genesis  to  reve- 
lation. If  my  hope  of  happiness  must  fail  it  s/iai'l  fail 
only  with  the  promises  of  my  God. 

1  leave  the  subject  with  you.  I  thank  you  all  for  your 
kind  and  patient  attention.  But  I  cannot  take  my  seat 
w'ithout  returning  to  the  Moderators  my  thanks  for  the 
gentlemanly,  and  dignified  manner  in  which  they  have 
presided  over  this  discussion  from  its  commencement  lo 
its  closp.. 

[Mr.  Franklin  arose,  and  said;  As  there  seems  to  be 
a  very  great  desire  am.ong  the  people  that  this  debate 
vshould  be  published,  1  wish  to  know  of  Mr.  Terrell, 
before  we  separate,  if  he  is  not  willing  to  write  out  his 
part  of  it.  1  have  taken  down  as  much  of  it  as  I  could, 
and  intend  to  pubhsh  it;  but  I  think  it  would  be  more 
satisfactory  to  all,  for  each  of  the  disputants  to  write 
out  his  own  speeches. 

Mr.  Terrell  said;  I  cannot  write  my  speeches,  for  I 
have  not  taken  notes,  and  consequently  do  not  know 
what  I  have  said.  I  learned  to  preach  without  notes, 
and  am  therefore  an  oif-hand  speaker.  If  the  people 
desire  to  read  a  debate,  they  can  read  the  one  between 
Mr.  Campbell,  and  Mr.  Rice. 

Mr.  Franklin;  I  will  furnish  Mr.  Terreell  with  my 
notes,  if  he  can't  write  his  speeches  without  so  there 
need  be  no  excuse.  The  debate  between  Campbell  and 
Rice  costs  so  much,  that  few  are  able  to  own  it;  and  it 
is  so  large  that  fewer  still  have  time  to  read  it. 

Mr.  Teriell;  I  have  only  a  word  more  to  say,  and  that 
is,  there  is  a  personal  difiiculy  between  Mr.  Franklin 
and  myself,  so  I  cannot  condescend  to  have  any  thing 


AND  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  267 

to  do  with  the  publication  of  a  book,  in   which  Mr. 
Franklin  is  concerned. 

Mr  Franklin;  I  am  not  very  anxious  to  do  the  print- 
ing; you  can  get  any  one  else  to  do  it  that  you  please; 
1  only  want  the  people  to  have  the  book,  because   I  be- 
lieve it  will  do  a  great  deal  of  good. 

^h.  Pritchard  then  said:  Bro.  Franklin,  as  this  peo- 
ple all  know  you,  I  would  treat  that  insult  offered  with- 
out cause,  with  silent  contempt. 


SO  ENDED  THE  DEBATE. 


ERRATA. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Pritchard  could  not  be  present  to  read  the 
greater  part  of  the  proof,  and  that  it  wa3  frequently  the  case  that  I 
was  not  present,  much  of  the  proof  reading  was  done  by  the  printers. 
Not  being  familiar  with  the  subject,  and  some  words  occurring  in  xhe 
■'■■'-'vk  with  ^vhich  they  were  not  acquainted,  and  not  being  written  in  a 

ry  plain  hand,  they  have  made  some  mistakes,  which  alter  or  destroy 
.  .?  sense.  In  one  or  two  places  a  part  of  a  sentence  is  omitted,  as  on 
pige48.  Corne  and  comes  are  sometimes  printed  came,  Louo,  to  wash 
the  body,  page  42,  Is  changed  into  the  Latin  Law.  In  most  instances 
.:ie  reader  will  be  able  to  correct.  BENJ.  FRANKLIN. 


NOTE.  The  personal  difficulty  alluded  to  at  the  close,  as  existing 
between  Mr.' Tarrcll  and  myself,  and  which  I  did  not  make  any  reply 
to  at  the  time,  related,  as  I  suppose,  to  the  scries  of  letters  I  was  at  that 
Time  addressing }iim  through  tne  Western  Reformer,  in  which  work  ho 
was  repeatedly  offered  page  for  page  with  me,  if  he  wisliod  to  make  any 
reply.  It  could  be  nothing  else,  for  nothing  else  has  pass-ed  between 
us  in  any  way.  lie  has  charged  me  with  some  incorrect  statements  . — 
It  he  will  make  this  charge  in  writing,  and  specify  the  statements,  I 
v.ill  try  to  prove  them  correct.  ^  B.  FRANKLIN. 


Date  Due 

'JSU        : 

^ 

"iiiMuuiinnnniiHiXOC 

litMuuuuiUHinuU'i'A 
1  i  ^  I  rn  M I  vu  vnVu  lYiu  nn 

'  imnnMUiimHiXOiH 

'  .finMMuniuiuuiiu 


